Appeal No. 2005-0825
Application 08/772,259
[reply brief].
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of
representative claim 4, and therefore, of all the claims on
appeal. As noted by the examiner, the admitted prior art
(Figures 11 and 12) teaches the invention of claim 4 except for
the recitation that at least part of the slopes of the prismatic
surface define a light diffusible surface to generate diffused
light. Figures 11 and 12 teach a prismatic surface that does not
diffuse light (element 5) followed by a diffuser (element 6). As
also noted by the examiner, Ishikawa teaches that a roughened or
coarsened slope on the prismatic surface operates to diffuse
light. Appellants also disclose that such roughened slopes
operate to diffuse light. We note that the roughened slopes of
the prismatic surface 12 in Figure 2 of the application allow the
diffuser of the admitted prior art to be removed. We are of the
view that it would have been obvious to the artisan to roughen
the slopes of the prismatic surface shown in the admitted prior
art of Figures 11 and 12 so that the diffuser sheet 6 can be
removed. We find it clearly known in the relevant art that a
roughened surface converts directed light into diffused light.
The fact that Ishikawa and the admitted prior art offer
no recognition of the problem solved by appellants is not
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007