Appeal No. 1998-0620
Application 08/359,089
(claim 1) or "a single unitary illumination registration
member" (claim 7). "Unitary" requires a monolithic, one-piece
construction. Cf. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1055,
44 USPQ2d 1023, 1029 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (the term "integral"
covers more than a unitary construction). There is simply no
disclosure in Honma of how the illumination unit 24 is
constructed, much less that it is one-piece. It is not even
apparent that the illumination unit assembly is "integral" in
the sense that the assembly may be installed and removed as a
unit; however, even this would not satisfy the limitation of a
"unitary" reflector location surface, light source location
surface, and opening. Therefore, the finding of anticipation
is clearly erroneous. The anticipation rejection of claims 1,
7, and 16-18 is reversed.
Obviousness
Independent claim 21 recites "a single unitary
illumination registration member including an opposing
reflector location surface, a light source location surface,
and an opening ...," which is the same limitation as found in
claim 7. As discussed in connection with the rejection of
claim 7, Honma does not disclose a unitary member. The
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007