Appeal No. 1998-2464
Application No.08/353,278
much is clearly disclosed by the instant specification. Moreover, skilled artisans would
have no problem at all making and using the claimed invention. Taking claim 1 as
exemplary, the artisan would surely know how to provide for a light emitting layer containing
a fluorescent material on the back surface of a liquid crystal panel, as instructed by the
subject matter of claim 1.
The claimed subject matter may be very broad in nature and, if possible, may be
subject to attack by the examiner through the application of prior art. However, the claimed
subject matter does not run afoul of the enablement clause of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
The examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, is reversed.
REVERSED
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JERRY SMITH ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO )
Administrative Patent Judge )
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007