Appeal No. 2001-0390
Application 08/932,238
aligned with the light incident windows of the light receiving
elements [answer, pages 8-9].
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection for essentially
the same reasons discussed above. Specifically, the light source
of Funada is considered to include light emission portions which
include the light blocking elements as recited in claim 1. Since
the windows 206 are, therefore, part of the light source as
discussed above, we agree with the examiner that these windows
emit light and are aligned with the light receiving elements 104
as claimed. Therefore, the invention of claim 1 is fully met by
the disclosure of Funada. For reasons discussed above, the
remaining claims on appeal fall with independent claim 1.
In summary, we have sustained the examiner’s rejection of
all the appealed claims based on either the admitted prior art or
Funada. Therefore, the decision of the examiner rejecting claims
1-6 and 43-52 is affirmed.
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007