Appeal No. 2004-1069 Page 12
Application No. 09/569,616
The examiner's position that the above-noted dimensional relationship is met by
Tai's prismatic diffuser 66 is without merit since the prismatic diffuser 66, while a flat
light guide, is not arranged as set forth in claim 1.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 1,
and claims 2, 3 and 5 dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed
The obviousness rejection
We will not sustain the rejection of dependent claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
since the examiner has not established that the limitations of claim 1 not taught by Tai,
as set forth above with respect to claim 1, would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007