Appeal No. 1996-1387 Page 20
Application No. 08/110,269
claimed position. Therefore, we affirm the rejection of claim
19.
We agree with the appellant that the references do not
show the IR-reflective coating of claim 21. The examiner’s
rejection, however, is based on obviousness rather than
anticipation. The appellant has not explained why replacing
Bornhorst’s IR filter, which is beside an LC layer, with an
IR-coating on the layer would not have been obvious.
Accordingly, he has not shown error in the rejection.
Therefore, we affirm the rejection of claim 21. Next, we
address claim 20.
Claim 20
Regarding claim 20, the appellant argues, “[a]
holographic diffuser must be shown in the prior art, together
with a teaching for combining it with the references. Neither
has been done.” (Appeal Br. at 26.) The examiner replies,
“the holographic diffuser would have been obvious because
such diffuser is well known in the art to diffuse light.”
(Examiner’s Answer at 4.)
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007