Appeal No. 2007-0800
Application No. 10/066,267
evidence in the record necessarily demonstrating that Muenchow’s enclosure
is reflective. (Id. at 15.)
The Examiner responds that “the missing material is necessarily
present since the enclosure of Muenchow is a reflective enclosure since it
would partially prevent[] the passage of light and cause [it] to change
direction.” (Answer 4.)
We agree with the Examiner that the enclosure containing
Muenchow’s light source, switch, and power source is inherently reflective.
As discussed supra, one of ordinary skill would interpret the term
“reflective” to encompass objects that obstruct the passage of at least some
light, causing it to change direction, as well as objects that throw back at
least some of the light that impacts them. Muenchow’s enclosure is “made
as a continuous cylindrical tube of flexible waterproof material” which has
“[a] tubular lens [that] is built into and protrudes from the sleeve closed
end.” (Muenchow, col. 3, ll. 50-55.)
Thus, since it is not entirely transparent, Muenchow’s enclosure
obstructs, changes the direction of, and throws back a sufficient amount of
light to allow it to be seen. (See, e.g., Muenchow, Figure 1 (item 25), and
Figure 2.) The enclosure containing Muenchow’s light source, switch, and
power source is therefore necessarily “reflective,” as one skilled in the art
would understand that term. We therefore agree with the Examiner that
Muenchow inherently describes a reflective enclosure.
Because we agree with the Examiner that Muenchow describes a
device having all of the elements required in claim 9, we affirm the
anticipation rejection.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013