Appeal 2007-2577
Application 90/006,344
THE CLAIMS AND REJECTIONS
Claims 1-8 are unamended patent claims. Claims 9-11 were added
during reexamination. Claims 1 and 9 are independent. Claims 2-8 depend
directly or indirectly from claim 1, while claims 10 and 11 depend directly
from claim 9.2 Prazoff has divided the claims into four groups for the
purposes of appeal: 1 and 5; 2, 6, and 8; 3, 4 and 7; and 9-11.3 We will
accordingly analyze a representative claim from each group.4
The examiner rejected5 claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as having
been anticipated by a patent to Lin.6
The examiner rejected7 claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as having
been obvious in view of patents to Chen8 and Tsui.9
Analysis of both anticipation and obviousness begin with construction
of the contested claim terms. In proceedings before the Office, unexpired
patent claims must be given their broadest reasonable construction, taking
into account any definitions in the specification.10 We focus on the
contested limitations.
2 Claims appendix to the appeal brief (Br.). All claim language is
reproduced from the appeal brief.
3 Br. 15. It is unclear where claim 7 was intended to be grouped. We have
grouped it with its parent claim 3.
4 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (single claim represents group).
5 Examiner's Answer (Ans.) 3.
6 Ta-Yeh Lin, Non-neon light, US 4,607,317 (issued 1986) (Lin).
7 Examiner's Answer (Ans.) 3.
8 Scott Chen, Flexible lamp-string device, US 4,812,956 (issued 1989)
(Chen).
9 Pui-Hing Tsui, Joy light structure, US 5,150,964 (issued 1992).
10 In re Bass, 314 F.3d 575, 577, 65 USPQ2d 1156, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2002),
citing In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571, 222 USPQ 934, 936 (Fed. Cir.
1984).
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013