Appeal No. 1999-2713 Page 8
Application No. 08/801,805
Endo. The examiner's rationale is that the roughened surface
will increase the uniform distribution of light and
simultaneously reduce the tendency for the light control
member to adhere to the light guide plate.
Appellants (brief, page 5) acknowledge that Endo does
teach a roughened emission surface, but assert that "the only
motivation to add the roughened emitting surface of Endo to
the device of the admitted prior art is motivation which is
based upon hindsight reconstruction." Appellants argue
(brief, pages 4 and 5) that Endo fails to teach or suggest any
element closely disposed to the roughened surface, and that
Endo fails to teach or suggest that roughening of the emitting
could be useful in preventing the adherence of the light
control member to the emitting surface. Appellants further
assert (brief, page 6) that APA makes no mention of a
roughened emitting surface, and suggests that the emitting
surface is smooth.
The examiner responds (answer, pages 6 and 7) by noting
that both APA and Endo are drawn to optical devices having
light guide plates, control members and prisms and diffusing
elements for controlling the directivity of light. The
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007