Appeal No. 2001-1116
Application No. 09/070,222
diffusing state and a quarter-wave plate arranged between the reflective portions of
the pixels and a polarizing beam splitter . . . .
Appellants go on to explain (brief, pages 9 and 10) that:
The portion of the Kobayashi et al. patent relied on by the Examiner, Fig 34A
(described on column 46, line 56-column 47, line 1) does not show a liquid
crystalline display panel having pixels having reflective portions and portions which
can be switched between a transparent state and a diffusing state.
As shown in column 46, line 56-column 47, line 1 of the Kobayashi et al[.]
patent[,] the pixel shown in Fig 34A has a portion which can be switched between a
transparent state and a diffusing state but does not have a reflective portion.
Reflector plate 3109, is not a portion of the pixel but is separated from the
pixel by quarter-wave plate 3108.
Additionally, the Kobayashi et al. patent does not show a polarizing beam
splitter and therefore does not fill in the gap in the Chiu et al. patent regarding the
presence of a quarter-wave plate between a polarizing beam splitter and the reflective
portions of the pixels of the display panel.
We agree with appellants’ arguments. The applied references neither teach nor would they
have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the specifically claimed placement of the quarter-
wave plate between the polarizing beam splitter and the reflective portions of the pixels of the
reflecting image display panel. Thus, the obviousness rejection of claims 1 and 3 through 5 is
reversed.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007