Appeal No. 97-3474
Application No. 08/431,211
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the respective
positions of appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the evidence before us and,
based on such evidence, we will sustain the examiner’s
rejections.
First, with regard to the rejection based on Kawaguchi, and
specifically focusing on independent claim 1, the examiner
identifies (at the top of page 3 of Paper No. 4) various sections
of the Kawaguchi reference which disclose the claimed invention.
As we understand the examiner’s position, looking at Figure 4 of
the reference, Kawaguchi clearly shows a LCD 15, an outer casing
17 and a silicone gel 19 sandwiched therebetween. Clearly, the
outer casing 17 is an “optical component,” as claimed.
Appellants argue, at pages 3-5 of the brief, that Kawaguchi
fails to show a “glass to glass” bond and that the examiner’s
reliance on glass substrates being known is misplaced because the
claims are directed to more than “just a piece of glass.”
We do not find appellants’ arguments to be persuasive.
Kawaguchi clearly discloses a LCD 15 having a first surface and
an optical component 17 having a first surface wherein a layer of
silicone gel is positioned between the first surfaces and
attaches the optical component to the LCD. The only issue is
whether Kawaguchi suggested that these two first surfaces should
be “substantially planar glass surfaces,” as claimed. There is
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007