Appeal No. 95-4814
Application 07/935,507
illumination levels and sources, the diffuse and reflective
coatings on the pair of illumination systems, and the
uniformity of the illumination (column 4, lines 9 through 15)
combine to form "a hollow Lambertian integrating vessel" in
Martino as disclosed and claimed at least absent a factual
showing that a "Lambertian integrating vessel" has structural
properties different from Martino. As illustrated in the
cross-sectional view of the light table 17, a cylindrical5
shape, but not a cylinder, is formed by the illumination
system 87. The open end of each of the illumination systems
87 and 87a forms a very wide aperture.
In view of the foregoing, the obviousness rejection
of claims 1, 2, 6, 7 and 20 is sustained over the teachings of
the admitted prior art in Vala and Martino. It is noted that6
no particular vessel shape is set forth in claims 1, 6 and 20.
Claim 7 requires a "cylindrical" vessel, not a closed
The cross-sectional shape of the illumination system 875
has the properties of a cylinder.
Although the rejection is based on Vala in view of6
Martino, it is permissible to sustain the rejection in light
of the admitted prior art in Vala and Martino. See In re
Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 495-96, 131 USPQ 263, 266-67 (CCPA
1961).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007