Appeal No. 96-1465
Application No. 08/115,299
board and the display device [Id. at pages 3-4]. The examiner
also fails to respond to this argument which provides
additional support for the position that the examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness for the
invention of claim 1.
With respect to the additional teachings of Momose,
the examiner points to the metallic frame in Momose and its
described advantages of securing, integrating and protecting
the various components of the Momose display device [answer,
page 5]. We fail to see how the metallic frame of Momose
would have led the artisan to modify Fukuda so that the
protective base in Fukuda would be metallic and would
completely cover the rear surface of the display device in the
manner recited in claim 1. Appellant has pointed out
deficiencies in this rejection in the reply brief, and the
examiner has again simply ignored the arguments. Thus, we are
also constrained to hold that, on this record, the rejection
of claim 1 based on the collective teachings of Fukuda and
Momose cannot be sustained.
With respect to the additional teachings of Lehmann,
the examiner points to Lehmann’s teaching of separating
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007