Appeal No. 2000-1182
Application No. 08/957,554
in Ishiharada I to make the luminance uniform along the length
of the waveguide in Ishiharada I as suggested by Ishiharada
II. For these reasons, we will sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claims 3, 4, 6, 7 and 16, which stand or fall
together.
With respect to separately argued claim 5, appellants
contend (Brief, page 11) that claim 5 recites that the
roughening of the inner surface of the cladding increases with
increasing distance from a nearest one of two or more light
receiving ends which is not suggested by the applied prior
art. Neither Ishiharada I nor Ishiharada II discloses a
waveguide having two or more light receiving ends. We are
unable to find any response by the examiner to appellants'
argument nor any explanation as to the obviousness of the
additional limitation. Since the examiner never addresses the
feature of a waveguide having more than one light receiving
end, he fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness
for roughening the inner surface of the cladding as recited in
claim 5. Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection of claim
5.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007