Appeal No. 2005-0825
Application 08/772,259
not to make in the brief have not been considered and are deemed
to be waived [see 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004)].
With respect to representative independent claim 4, the
examiner finds that the prior art optical device as shown in
Figures 11 and 12 of the application contains all the claim
limitations except that it does not disclose that only part of
the slopes of each prism defines a diffusing surface for the
purpose of generating a diffused light in a substantially uniform
manner and simultaneously reducing the effects of the reflecting
plate. The examiner cites Ishikawa as teaching a light control
plate having a roughened prismatic configuration of the type
recited in claim 4. The examiner finds that it would have been
obvious to the artisan to modify the prior art device to have the
roughened prismatic configuration as taught by Ishikawa [answer,
pages 3-5].
Appellants argue that the prism sheet of Ishikawa does
not perform the uniform pattern of illumination operation as
asserted by the examiner. Appellants argue that Ishikawa teaches
a different type of side type light display device which has two
light sources and no angled light plate. Appellants also argue
that the light illumination systems of Ishikawa and the prior art
are different. Appellants also assert that there is no
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007