Appeal No. 97-3474
Application No. 08/431,211
Turning now to the rejections based on Sirkin as the primary
reference, we will also sustain these rejections because
appellants’ only argument is to point to the glass to glass bond
limitation of the claims, as they did with the rejection based on
Kawaguchi, and reassert the same arguments “except that all
references to the ‘Kawaguchi’ [sic, Kawaguchi reference] therein
should be changed to the ‘Sirkin’ reference” [brief, page 5].
The examiner has reasonably explained, at pages 4-5 of Paper
No. 4, how Sirkin, in combination with other references, is
applied against the instant claims, identifying the liquid
crystal cells and an optional anti-reflective sheet of glass in
Sirkin as optical elements and pointing out how the lamination of
these elements with a silicone gel is fairly suggested.
Therefore, in our view, the examiner has clearly established a
prima facie case of obviousness and, contrary to appellants’
assertion, has clearly considered the glass to glass bond
limitation of the claims.
Since appellants have made no other arguments, and the
examiner has established a reasonable case for a finding of
obviousness of the claimed subject matter, we will sustain the
rejections of claims 1, 2, 4 through 7 and 11 through 14 under
35 U.S.C. ' 103.
The examiner’s decision is affirmed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007