Appeal No. 1998-2464
Application No.08/353,278
light emitting layer to be more inefficient than a reflecting layer and therefore not function as
a backlight. Therefore, concludes the examiner, the device would not overcome any of the
difficulties of reflective displays. Further, the examiner contends that the original disclosure
seems to describe a photo-multiplier which does not require any external power sources.
“However, it does not describe any detailed examples nor include any test results to
convince one of ordinary skill in that art that such a device is possible” [answer-page 4].
We hold that the examiner has not established a reasonable basis for challenging
the adequacy of the disclosure. Appellant has not disclosed, nor does he claim, a
fluorescent material which emits the same amount, or more, of light incident thereupon.
Artisans would understand that the fluorescent layer of the instant invention only emits light
for a short period of time since there is no power source and the light emitted is derived
only from the ambient light incident on the liquid crystal panel. With regard to the
examiner’s argument that there is no disclosure of the fluorescent material
emitting light for “a short period,” this is irrelevant since the name of the game is the claim
and the instant claims do not recite anything about the period of time in which
light is emitted. The claims call only for an LCD which comprises a liquid crystal panel
and a light emitting layer which contains a fluorescent material caused to emit light by
external light transmitted by the liquid crystal panel. Independent claim 3 adds the
limitation that the light emitting layer is “an anisotropic conductive light emitting layer.” This
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007