Appeal No. 2000-1182
Application No. 08/957,554
review, we find that the teachings of Ishiharada I do not
support either of the rejections based on Ishiharada I taken
alone. We reach the opposite conclusion, however, with
respect to the rejection based on the collective teachings of
Ishiharada I and Ishiharada II. Accordingly, we affirm-in-
part. We also enter a new ground of rejection using our
authority under 37 CFR § 1.196(b).
We consider first the rejection of claims 1, 11, 13
through 15, 17, 19, 24 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Ishiharada I. Appellants indicate on page 4 of
the Brief that these claims stand or fall together as a single
group. The only limitation of claim 1 at issue is "at least
two of the regions having different degrees of roughness
provided by the indentations, to produce a light extraction
pattern from the waveguide," found in the last three lines of
the claim. The same limitation appears in each of independent
claims 15 and 25. Accordingly, we analyze claim 1 as
representative.
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, expressly or under the principles of
inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention as
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007