Appeal No. 1999-1341
Application No. 08/542,323
Reference is made to the briefs and answers for the respective positions of
appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We reverse.
At the outset, we note, in passing, that 37 CFR 1.193(b)(1) does not permit for a
supplemental examiner’s answer as was provided by the examiner in the present case.
Turning to the substantive issues, with regard to the independent claims, it is the
examiner’s position that Taniguchi discloses the claimed LED arrays, photoconductive
surface and plurality of lenses. We agree. These elements can be seen in Figure 1 of
Taniguchi.
However, the claims also require that the LEDs emit a majority of light towards
the corresponding lens “in varying directions.” The examiner recognizes this deficiency in
Taniguchi and relies on Kessler for the missing teaching. More specifically, the examiner
contends that Kessler, at columns 5-7 and Figure 5, “suggests that each one
of the light emitting elements (12a, b) can be arranged at an angle such that the light beams
being [sic, are] directed into the center of an optical correction system” (principal answer-
page 4) and concludes that it would have been obvious “to modify the angle of the LEDs in
Taniguchi...as suggested by Kessler...thereby enabling a greater amount
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007