Appeal No. 1998-0564
Application 08/359,840
arguments from the earlier noted Advisory Action and the
answer is simply that the artisan may have found or might have
found or could have found it obvious to have pre-arranged the
location of the conductive film relative to the pixel
electrodes and the scanning signal lines, but we are
unpersuaded that it “would have been” obvious to the artisan
to do so based upon the evidence provided in the form of the
applied prior art as well as the examiner’s reasoning.
In view of the foregoing, we therefore reverse the
rejection of claims 15 through 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
because essentially the same pontinen features are recited in
claims 25 through 41. As such, it is evident from even a
cursory view of Miyasaka that this reference does not teach or
show anything which would aide in the examiner’s reasoning as
to the obviousness of these claims.
Therefore, the decision of the examiner rejecting claims
15 through 41 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007