Appeal No. 1999-1341
Application No. 08/542,323
of light beams of a greater spaced apart light emitting elements to reach the center of the
single lens” (principal answer-page 5).
It is our view that the examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness with regard to the instant claimed subject matter.
The light emitting elements in Kessler are laser diodes while the light emitting
elements in Taniguchi are LEDs. We agree with appellant that the two types of light
sources are unrelated as “LEDs ordinarily do not emit light which is highly focused like
light from lasers, and there is no motivation to combine the references” (principal brief
pages 7-8). Moreover, Kessler simply does not provide the deficiency of Taniguchi. That
is, there is nothing in Kessler which suggests that a greater amount of luminous flux is
obtained by varying the angles of the lasers. Kessler is merely interested in precisely
aiming a laser beam. Thus, there would appear to have been no reason, other than
hindsight knowledge gained from appellant’s disclosure, for the skilled artisan to have
taken any teaching of Kessler related to lasers emitting light in varying directions and apply
that teaching to modify Taniguchi in order to vary the directions of the light emitted from the
LEDs of Taniguchi.
Appellant also makes a convincing argument that the examiner’s rationale for
combining the references is flawed. Since one would generally desire to reduce
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007