The problems associated with low-lighting conditions in restaurants and other places are well known.
One of the most significant problems is the difficulty patrons have in reading printed matter, such as a restaurant bill, in a restaurant.
When the patron attempts to read the bill or
invoice, especially a patron with deteriorated eyesight, the patron experiences great difficulty, often searching for an alternative
light source which is usually not to be found.
The Broxson device does not directly illuminate the printed material to be read or illuminate it from behind, and requires a complicated tilt-sensitive switching
assembly which uses mercury.
Ward suffers from the
disadvantage that the slidable magnifying member requires a specific
edge structure and magnifier, and does not illuminate the document upon which the printed matter to be read is printed upon from behind.
Therefore, users who require significant illumination to read printed matter will have to substantially close the booklet in order to use the device, which is both counterproductive and counter intuitive.
Again, this device does not illuminate the document upon which the printed matter appears from behind, and, given that the direction of incident light from the light source is parallel to the surface upon which the printed matter is printed, only a small amount of illumination results.
Once again, no illumination of the document containing the printed matter from behind is accomplished.
Among the drawbacks of Schlosser are that the device incorporates features not necessary for the basic function of assisting a restaurant patron to view a bill or
invoice, thereby rendering the device unduly complicated and expensive to manufacture and maintain.
Schlosser also fails to provide an enabling disclosure of the “backlight” feature.
Even further, by not being rechargeable, the batteries in Schlosser will have to be constantly replaced, adding unnecessarily to the maintenance burden imposed upon the restaurant's employees in which the device is used.
In actuality, the likelihood that batteries will be replaced in devices such as Schlosser, given the frequency with which they will have to be changed, will diminish over time and whatever benefits the illumination components of Schlosser provide will be totally lost.
Moreover, the device of Schlosser does not provide any means to automatically reduce or eliminate power supplied to the “backlight” feature when the device is either not in use or in conditions of bright ambient light, when there is absolutely no need to provide illumination.
Therefore, the device of Schlosser is highly inefficient in as much as it is not able to conserve battery power when illumination is unnecessary.
Still further, the Schlosser device is a complicated, expensive and impracticable aggregation of components, most of which require significant electrical power to operate.
Therefore, the resulting product is subject to high
power consumption, resulting in the need for frequent battery replacement.
Therefore, Schlosser does not teach one of skill in the art to make and use the device.
The device of Levy illuminates from the side and not from a generally uniformly illuminated panel disposed below the menu, and the light provided by the device of Levy is so diffuse that it does not appear to be sufficiently concentrated to illuminate a small area such as that occupied by a restaurant bill or
invoice.
Moreover, the device of Levy does not utilize an intelligent, condition responsive, circuit and
lighting system adapted to minimize battery
power consumption while maximizing the convenience to the restaurant patron.
Finally, the disclosure in Levy appears to be inadequate to enable one of skill in the art to make and use the invention.