Appeal No. 1996-1387 Page 22
Application No. 08/110,269
reverse the rejection of claim 20. Next, we address claim
22.
Claim 22
Regarding claim 22, the appellant notes, “[n]o reason for
rejection of claim 22 has been given” by the examiner.
(Appeal Br. at 24.) He argues, “[c]laim 22 does not read on
the Office Action’s combination of references.” (Id. at 25.)
The appellant explains, “Naemura specifically discloses
polarizing filters.” (Id.) The examiner fails to respond to
this argument.
The Examiner erred by not explaining how the prior art
would have suggested the limitations of claim 22. He has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness. Therefore, we
reverse the rejection of claim 22. Next, we address claim 23.
Claim 23
Regarding claim 23, the appellant merely states, “[t]he
discussion above applies to claim 23.” (Appeal Br. at 26.)
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007