Appeal No. 1999-0349
Application 08/621,379
polarization-direction changing film. We find that Hashimoto
and Wood do not provide any suggestion of the specific claimed
location of the reflection film; i.e., disposed between the
polarization-direction changing film and the first glass
plate.
The examiner takes the position (answer, page 4) that
antireflection films are old and well known and that it would
have been obvious to have added an antireflection film to the
inner window of Hashimoto. The appellants assert (brief, page
10) that appellants requested (Amendment filed April 23, 1998
under 37 CFR § 1.116, Paper No. 11) that the examiner provide
evidence to support the examiner’s assertion. We note that in
the amendment (page 8), the appellants requested the examiner
to provide a reference to support the examiner’s assertion and
to establish that it would have been obvious to have used an
antireflection film on the inner window of Hashimoto. The
examiner asserts (answer, page 6) that the appellants’
traversal of the examiner’s well-known statement is untimely
because it was not made in the amendment following the Office
action in which the well-known statement was made. The
Page 9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007