Appeal No. 2003-0018
Application No. 09/035,431
arguments. See Id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1040, 228 USPQ
685, 687 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472,
223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d
1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 146-147 (CCPA 1976). Only those
arguments actually made by appellant have been considered in this
decision. Arguments which appellant could have made but chose
not to make in the brief have not been considered and are deemed
to be waived [see 37 CFR 1.192 (a)].
It is the examiner’s position, with regard to independent
claim 1, that Endo teaches the claimed subject matter but for the
physical location of the temperature sensor on one of the
supporting plates. Thus, the examiner turns to Nash for a
teaching of a physical configuration of a temperature sensor
directly on a supporting plate of liquid crystal panel 12, with
the temperature sensor 20 on the glass supporting plate 40b. The
examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify Endo
with Nash such that the temperature sensor of Endo is placed on
one of the supporting plates of the liquid crystal medium
“because it would result in a more precise temperature reading of
liquid crystal medium, as taught by Nash ( column 2, lines 14-17,
column 3, lines 8-14), thus a better control of LCD contrast in
spite of temperature change” (answer-page 4).
-4–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007