Appeal No. 97-1932
Application 08/028,047
direct display device” [answer, page 8]. Appellant filed a
reply brief disputing the obviousness of changing the
reflective conductive layer of Shmulovich to a transparent
conductive layer. According to appellant, the state of the
prior art would have suggested that the phosphor layer and
conductive layer in Shmulovich be interchanged if the
conductive layer were transparent rather than reflective as
disclosed in Shmulovich [reply brief, pages 4-5]. The
examiner did not respond to the reply brief filed by
appellant.
As we noted above, obviousness is determined on the
evidence and the relative persuasiveness of the arguments.
Appellant has presented a persuasive argument as to why a
transparent conductive layer in Shmulovich would not be placed
between the phosphor layer and the face plate. The examiner
has not addressed this argument of appellant. Since we agree
with appellant that a legitimate challenge to the obviousness
of claims 13 and 14 has been raised, and since the examiner
has offered no rationale beyond the mere conclusion of
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007