Appeal No. 2000-1182
Application No. 08/957,554
I and II. These claims stand or fall together as a single
group except for claim 5 which is separately argued by
appellants (Brief, pages 10-11). With respect to claim 3, the
examiner notes that Ishiharada II teaches an optical waveguide
in which the roughening of the cladding increases with
increasing distance from the light receiving end in order to
make the luminance uniform along the entire length of the
waveguide. The examiner asserts (Final Rejection, pages 4-5)
that it would have been obvious to apply this teaching to the
waveguide of Ishiharada I to achieve the desirable goal of
uniform luminance as taught by Ishiharada II.
Appellants respond (Brief, pages 10-11) by noting that
the surface roughness in Ishiharada II is substantially
parallel to the direction of light flow rather than non-
parallel, as recited in claims 1 and 15 and as taught by
Ishiharada I. Appellants argue that there is no suggestion or
motivation for combining the teachings of Ishiharada I with
the teachings of Ishiharada II to arrive at the claimed
invention, since the devices of the two references are formed
in different ways. The examiner responds (Answer, pages 10-
11) that despite the differences between Ishiharada I and II,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007