Appeal No. 2006-1628
Application No. 09/840,082
55 USPQ2d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2000). See also In re Thrift, 298 F. 3d 1357, 1363,
63 USPQ2d 2002, 2008 (Fed. Cir. 2002). These showings by the examiner are
an essential part of complying with the burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444
(Fed. Cir. 1992). If that burden is met, the burden then shifts to the applicant to
overcome the prima facie case with argument and/or evidence. Obviousness is
then determined on the basis of the evidence as a whole and the relative
persuasiveness of the arguments. See Id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039,
228 USPQ 685, 686 (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, 1052, 189
USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). Only those arguments actually made by
appellants have been considered in this decision. Arguments which appellants
could have made but chose not to make in the briefs have not been considered
and are deemed to be waived [see 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004)].
Regarding independent claims 1, 5, 9, 11, 15, and 19, the examiner's
rejection essentially finds that the admitted prior art teaches every claimed
feature except for the light-shielding member (1) extending from an end at the
pixel electrode side of a drain electrode of the thin film transistor (TFT), and (2)
extending from an end at the pixel electrode side of the storage capacitor upper
electrode (metal thin film) into the pixel area. The examiner also indicates that
the claims differ from the admitted prior art in calling for the light-shielding
member to cover and extend past all sides of the drain electrode (metal thin film)
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007