Appeal No. 1999-2713 Page 7
Application No. 08/801,805
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992). If that burden is met, the burden then shifts to the
applicant to overcome the prima facie case with argument
and/or evidence. Obviousness is then determined on the basis
of the evidence as a whole. See id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d
1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re
Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir.
1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143,
147 (CCPA 1976).
The examiner's position (final rejection, page 3) is that
APA does not teach "means applied to the emitting surface of[3]
the light guide plate (2) for the purpose of reducing the
tendency for the light control member to adhere to the light
guide plate" to overcome this deficiency in APA the examiner
turns to Endo for a teaching of providing a roughened emitting
surface on the light guide plate. The examiner asserts that
the emitting surface of light guide member 4A of Endo has a
roughened surface, and concludes that it would have been
obvious to roughen the emitter surface of APA as suggested by
3We presume that the examiner meant to say "roughness" instead of
"means" as none of the claims are in means-plus-function format.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007