Appeal No. 2007-0800
Application No. 10/066,267
seen. (See, e.g., Muenchow, Figure 1 (element 25), and Figure 2.) Thus, the
enclosure containing Muenchow’s light source, switch, and power source is
“reflective,” as one skilled in the art would understand that term. We
therefore agree with the Examiner that Muenchow discloses a reflective
enclosure, as required in claim 8.
Appellant further argues (Br. 12) that
those skilled in the art know that a reflective item when shined
upon by an external light will turn back the light impinging on
the reflective item in the direction of the external light. This is
quite different than a tree becoming visible during daylight
hours, as the viewer does not have to be located in the direction
between the tree and the sun for the tree to be visible.
Indeed, claim 8 (as well as claim 9) specifically state[s]
that “said reflective enclosure can be seen by others when shined
upon with lights to verify position of said flag arm.”
We do not find Appellant’s argument persuasive. We agree with
Appellant to the extent he argues that, when lights are shined on them,
objects having relatively high reflectivity can be more easily seen at greater
distances than objects having relatively low reflectivity.
However, the claims do not limit the enclosures to any particular
degree of reflectivity. Thus, the claims encompass enclosures having any
degree of reflectivity. As discussed supra, because the enclosure containing
Muenchow’s light source and switch necessarily obstructs, changes the
direction of, and throws back at least some of the light that impacts it, that
enclosure is “reflective,” as one skilled in the art would understand that term.
Because the claims encompass any degree of reflectivity, we agree
with the Examiner that Muenchow discloses a reflective enclosure that can
be seen by others when shined upon with lights, as required in claim 8.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013