Appeal 2007-2399
Application 10/896,417
DISCUSSION
Obviousness over Reinert ‘302 in view of Reinert ‘201
The Examiner contends that Reinert ‘362 describes elements (a)
through (d) of the claimed assembly apparatus for airport inset lights, but
does not describe the assembly constructed of stainless steel as recited in
claim 21 (Answer 4). However, the Examiner states that Reinert ‘201
“teaches the use of stainless steel construction in airport inset lights (col. 2
line 55)” (Answer 4). The Examiner concludes that
[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time the invention was made to have the [Reinert] ‘362
reference include the stainless steel construction of [Reinert]
‘201 for the purpose of preventing corrosion cause by ground
water and free electron sources present in the soil in which the
light fixture is embedded.
(Answer 4.)
Priority claim
Appellant contends that the instant application is entitled to the benefit
of the earlier filing dates of Reinert ‘362 and Reinert ‘201 (Br. 12).
Consequently, Appellant asserts that the rejection is improper because
Reinert ‘362 and Reinert ‘201 are not prior art to the application (Br. 13).
In order for a later filed application to be accorded the benefit of the
filing date of an earlier filed application, 35 U.S.C § 120 requires that the
later filed application contain or be amended to contain a specific reference
to the earlier filed application. As stated in 35 U.S.C. § 120:
An application for patent for an invention . . . shall have
the same effect . . . as though filed on the date of the prior
application, if filed before the patenting or abandonment of or
termination of proceedings on the first application or on an
application similarly entitled to the benefit of the filing date of
the first application and if it contains or is amended to contain a
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013