Appeal No. 2001-2209
Application No. 09/019,158
(Specification, page 3), there is no indication in the disclosure of Suehiro that uniform spacing of
lead groups was ever a concern.
Similarly, the Examiner correctly characterizes Suehiro’s disclosure as directed to
improving prior art light emitting device operation by increasing light emission in a particular
selected direction through the displacement of the center of the elliptically shaped light emitting
device along the central axis of a reflection surface of the device. It is apparent, however, that, since
Suehiro’s entire disclosure is directed to the improvement of an existing elliptically shaped light
emitting device, there is no suggestion or teaching of substituting an elliptically shaped device for
any other particular shaped light emitting devices such as the circular shape of the admitted prior art.
Given the above deficiencies in the applied prior art, it is our opinion that any suggestion to replace
the circular shaped light emitting device of the admitted prior art with an elliptically shaped device
such as in Suehiro could come, not from any teachings in the references themselves but, rather, only
from Appellants’ own disclosure.
Further, as asserted by Appellants (Brief, page 9), the record before us is totally devoid of
any evidence to support the Examiner’s conclusion (Answer, page 5) that the proposed combination
of the admitted prior art and Suehiro would improve the efficiency of the resultant light emitting
device. The Examiner must not only make requisite findings, based on the evidence of record, but
must also explain the reasoning by which the findings are deemed to support the asserted
conclusion. See In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1343, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1433-34 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007