Appeal No. 1996-0810
Application 08/259,354
of the pixel electrode acts as a second electrode of the
display capacitor" (RBr3) and "[t]he display capacitor is
not included within the display area of the pixel electrode"
(RBr3). Appellants secondly point out that "the top
electrode of the display capacitor of Ota is formed from a
non-transparent metallic aluminum or chromium material"
(RBr4). Therefore, the display capacitor is
non-transparent, which indicates that the Examiner erred in
stating that the device would not work if the display
capacitor had an opaque layer. We find both of these
reasons persuasive of error in the Examiner's finding of
anticipation.
We further agree with Appellants' argument that the
Examiner has failed to set forth a prima facie case of
obviousness by making a finding of the differences and
stating why it would have been obvious to modify Ota. We
find no motivation in Ota to modify Ota to reach the claimed
invention.
For the reasons stated above, the rejections of
claims 44-60 and 63-68 under §§ 102(b) and 103 are reversed.
REVERSED
- 9 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007