Appeal No. 2006-3016
Application No. 10/212,240
With respect to claim 2, Appellant argues (Br. 12) that the AAPA refers only
to clear or slightly tinted acrylic. Appellant further points out that the Examiner
has not shown any suggestion for using glass in Mitani (id.). The Examiner relies
on pages 1-2 of Appellant’s Specification and asserts that the advantages of using a
glass protective screen would have made the modification obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art (Answer 18).
A review of Mitani also reveals that a glass or plastic panel, disposed in
front of the lens layers, lowers the light permeably on the front surface and protects
the sensitive lens layers (Mitani, col. 1, ll. 5-13). Although Mitani already
describes using glass panel 69 (Figure 11), its combination with AAPA is proper as
they both describe the benefits of using a glass front panel. Obviousness from
[prior art reference] would follow, ipso facto, if [prior art reference] anticipates.
See RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1446, 221
USPQ 385, 390 (Fed. Cir. 1984), citing In re Kalm, 378 F.2d 959, 962, 154 USPQ
10, 12 (CCPA 1967), (anticipation stated as being the "epitome of obviousness").
Accordingly, we also sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 2.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013