Appeal No. 1999-2039 Page 4
Application No. 08/531,424
and 13 stand rejected under § 103(a) as being obvious over
Moore in view of Kakinuma further in view of Pileski. Claim
14 stands rejected under § 103(a) as being obvious over Moore
in view of Kakinuma further in view of Pileski even further in
view of Nagasaki. Rather than reiterate the arguments of the
appellant or examiner in toto, we refer the reader to the
brief and answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
After considering the record, we are persuaded that the
examiner erred in rejecting claims 10-17, 18, and 29-36.
Accordingly, we reverse. We begin by summarizing the
examiner's rejection and the appellant‘s argument.
Admitting that “Kakinuma et al does not particularly
disclose ... light emitting diodes arranged in a generally
concentric pattern surrounding a light transmissive central
aperture in the center of the pattern,” (Examiner’s Answer at
4-5), the examiner asserts, "[i]t is considered obvious that
the light emitting diodes of Kakinuma et al may be provide in
place of the optical fibers of Pileski et al for the same
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007