Appeal 2007-1770
Application 10/632,289
unrebutted prima facie case of obviousness. As evidenced by LaPeruta, a
method for forming a light-absorbing matrix following the steps of
Appellants’ claims, albeit with two light sources instead of three, was known
in the art (FF 1-2). As evidenced by Yamazaki, there was a problem, known
in the art, with regard to two light source exposure methods such as that
taught by LaPeruta: They provided a non-uniform, non-optimal light
intensity distribution (FF 3). Yamazaki indicates that the solution to this
problem was also known in the art: incorporate a third light source between
the two light sources at the central position (FF 4). Therefore, one of
ordinary skill in the art armed with the above knowledge would have
followed the suggestion of Yamazaki to solve the known problem, i.e., the
use of two outer sources symmetrically located about an inner source at the
central source position as claimed.
III. CONCLUSION
Appellants have not shown a reversible error on the part of the
Examiner in rejecting claims 1-8 and 13-20 over the combination of
LaPeruta and Yamazaki.
IV. DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013