Appeal No. 1998-0996
Application No. 08/498,385
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 16,
mailed September 3, 1997) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to appellant's Brief (Paper
No. 15, filed July 3, 1997) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 17, filed
October 20, 1997) for appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied prior
art references, and the respective positions articulated by
appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
will reverse the anticipation rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 7, and
21 and also the obviousness rejections of claims 3 through 5, 8
through 20, and 22 through 25.
Independent claim 1 recites that at least one of the body
and the cover "filter[s] specific wavelengths of ambient light,
thereby preventing the specific wavelengths of ambient light from
passing therethrough . . . while allowing light having visible
wavelengths to pass therethrough." Claim 21 includes a similar
recitation. Thus, claims 1 and 21 require that the body or the
cover passes visible light and filters out (prevents from
passing) certain other wavelengths of light.
Inaba discloses (column 6, lines 1-21) that direct sunlight
may heat and deform the disc within the disc case because the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007