Appeal No. 1999-2713 Page 13
Application No. 08/801,805
insure that the desired amount of scattering occurs at the
emitter surface. There is no evidence that the emitting
surface roughness of Endo will be the same as the amount of
roughness necessary to prevent the light control member from
adhering to the emitting surface without losing the
directivity of light emitted from the emitting surface.
From all of the above, we find that the examiner has
failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness of the
invention set forth in claims 2, 4, and 7. Accordingly, the
rejection of claims 2, 4, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
reversed.
With respect to the rejection of dependent claims 3 and 5
based upon the additional teachings of Tanaka and Hisamura, we
find that these references do not overcome the deficiencies of
the basic combination of APA and Endo. Accordingly, these
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are also reversed.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007