Appeal 2007-1478
Application 10/359,861
issue [issue a), supra], as we conclude that claim 3 is directed to illuminating
a reflective license plate, which is not taught by Rice.
For the forging reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s anticipation
rejection of claims 2 and 3 without the need to consider the second issue
[issue b), supra].
NEW GROUND OF REJECTION PURSUANT TO
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)(2006) states:
(b) Should the Board have knowledge of any grounds not involved
in the appeal for rejecting any pending claim, it may include in its
opinion a statement to that effect with its reasons for so holding,
which statement constitutes a new ground of rejection of the claim. A
new ground of rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be
considered final for judicial review.
ANALYSIS
We now enter a new rejection of claims 2 and 3 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
Claim 2 recites an assembly fixed to the front bumper of a vehicle
comprising two lighting elements. The 2/1974 through 1984 Toyota Land
Cruisers included a lighted rear license plate assembly that included two
light sources. Facts 11 and 13. Also, it was known to mount the license
plate on the bumper of the vehicle (Facts 1, 16) and to illuminate the front
license plate of a vehicle. Fact 8. Claim 2 further recites that the lighting
elements are connected to the headlight circuit and provided power when the
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013