Appeal No. 97-1932
Application 08/028,047
obviousness, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 13 and
14 as formulated by the examiner on the record before us.
We now consider the rejection of claims 15-18 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Kishino in view of
Shmulovich and the admitted prior art. These claims all
depend from independent claim 13 just discussed. The admitted
prior art which is additionally applied against these claims
was not cited by the examiner for the purpose of demonstrating
the obviousness of replacing the Shmulovich reflective layer
with a transparent layer. Therefore, the admitted prior art
does not make up for the deficiency noted above in the
rejection of claim 13. Therefore, we do not sustain the
rejection of claims 15-18 for the same reasons discussed above
with respect to claim 13.
In summary, we have sustained the rejection of claims
25-34, but we have not sustained the rejection of claims 13-
18. Thus, the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 13-18
and 25-34 is affirmed-in-part.
14
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007