Appeal No. 96-0069
Application 08/110,493
the prior art in general might suggest the optical element of
claim 13, we can say that the invention as specifically recited
in claim 13 is not rendered obvious on this record.
Since Koechner does not suggest an optical element in the
shape of a pyramid as specifically recited in the claims, we do
not sustain the rejection of claims 13-21 based on the teachings
of Koechner.
We now consider the rejection of the claims under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the teachings of Almasi.
The examiner relies on the “pyramid” 20 of Almasi as meeting the
pyramid as recited in the claims [answer, page 10]. Appellants
argue that Almasi does not teach a solid regular pyramid as set
forth in the claims [brief, page 8].
Pyramid 20 in Almasi is a truncated pyramid similar to
the truncated pyramid of Koechner [note column 4, line 14]. The
truncated pyramid of Almasi does not suggest the specific pyramid
of the claims for the same reasons discussed above with respect
to Koechner. Therefore, the rejection of claims 13-21 based on
Almasi fails to make a prima facie case of obviousness for the
same reasons discussed above. Therefore, we also do not sustain
this rejection of claims 13-21.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007