Appeal No. 2000-1182
Application No. 08/957,554
the artisan would have been motivated to provide regions of
different degrees of roughness in Ishiharada I to achieve
uniform luminance along the length of the waveguide as taught
by Ishiharada II.
We agree with the examiner that the invention of claim 3
would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103
in view of the collective teachings of Ishiharada I and II.
Ishiharada II teaches that for a given type of surface
roughening, the degree of roughness should be increased with
increasing distance from the light receiving end to maintain a
uniform luminance along the length of the waveguide. We find
that this teaching applies to any form of roughening which is
designed to reflect light into and through the cladding to
diffuse the light. Whether the surface features are
predominately parallel or non-parallel to the direction of
light, they effect the same principle of causing light to be
reflected into and through the cladding. Ishiharada II is
used for nothing more than its suggestion that different
degrees of roughness provide uniform luminance along the
length of the waveguide. The artisan would have been
motivated to provide regions of different degrees of roughness
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007