Appeal No. 2005-0825
Application 08/772,259
recognition of the problem solved by the claimed invention in
Ishikawa. Finally, appellants argue that there is no motivation
to combine the teachings of Ishikawa with the admitted prior art
because the problems solved by Ishikawa are not present in the
admitted prior art [brief, pages 6-9].
The examiner responds that Ishikawa teaches that
roughening one of the two slopes of a prism provides a more
uniform light distribution after light passes through such a
prism. The examiner also responds that the combined teachings of
the admitted prior art and Ishikawa would have the effect of
reducing the effect of the reflector in the surface light source
device. Finally, the examiner responds that the modification of
the admitted prior art is suggested by Ishikawa in order to
provide a more uniform light distribution [answer, pages 5-8].
Appellants respond that there is no support on this
record to suggest that the roughened prism feature of Ishikawa
should be imported into the admitted prior art. Appellants
reiterate that the problems solved by Ishikawa are not present in
the admitted prior art so that there is no need to make the
proposed modification. Finally, appellants argue that the
modification proposed by the examiner comes only from an improper
attempt by the examiner to reconstruct the invention in hindsight
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007