Appeal No. 1996-1387 Page 15
Application No. 08/110,269
the rejection of claim 8 does not cure this defect. For the
foregoing reasons, the examiner has not established a prima
facie case of obviousness. Therefore, we reverse the
rejection of claims 7 and 8. Next, we address claims 12-14.
Claims 12-14
Regarding claims 12-14, the appellant makes two
arguments. First, he argues, “it is impossible to substitute
PDLC into the other reference, Naemura, because of the
opposite functioning of PDLC.” (Appeal Br. at 23.) The
examiner replies, “since Majima as modified have [sic]
disclosed the shutter which modulates light, having polymer-
dispersed material would have been obvious because it would be
an alternate material which the system may use for modulating
light.” (Examiner’s Answer at 4.)
We agree with the examiner. Naemura discloses an image
projector. A lamp 1 radiates light in the direction of a lens
2. The light is projected through an LC shutter 3, which
modulates the incoming light. Col. 4, ll. 17-22. The
reference does not limit the type of LC employed for the
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007