Appeal No. 2000-0757
Application No. 09/021,393
trapezoid, whereas appellants specifically disclose in their specification the trapezoid
shape of the central portion element and how/why such a shape was experimentally
achieved. See pages 17-20 of the specification and Figures 6A-6C, for example, showing
a relatively invariable light value for a main subject as distance varies but more of a
variation for the peripheral photometric area as distance varies. In other words, since
appellants have shown a specific reason, or a criticality, for making the central portion
element of a trapezoid shape, while Takagi provides no reason for making this element the
claimed shape, it does not suffice for the examiner to reach a conclusion of obviousness
based on a mere allegation of “design choice.”
It is our view, to whatever extent the examiner may have set forth a prima facie
case of obviousness, appellants have presented convincing evidence in the instant
disclosure to overcome that prima facie case and the burden has shifted back to the
examiner to show that, in fact, the trapezoid shape of the central portion element would
clearly have been suggested by the prior art in view of appellants’ convincing rebuttal of the
examiner’s allegation that the shape is no more than a mere “design choice.”
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007