Appeal 2007-1430
Application 10/407,696
sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 6, 30, and 49. However, see the
new ground of rejection, infra.
To reject claims 14, 25, 29, 47, and 48, the Examiner (Answer 6)
combines Binstead with Clancy, relying upon Binstead for the claimed
landing pad regions. Appellant contends (Br. 14) that Binstead uses
transparent conductor elements to prevent the conductor elements from
being seen, and, thus, fails to teach the claimed width recited in each of the
independent claims. Appellant does not argue the combination of Binstead
with Clancy nor the claim limitation of landing pad regions. Since we
determined supra that Clancy teaches the claimed trace width, we will
sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 14, 25, 29, 47, and 48 over
Clancy in view of Binstead.
Under the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), we enter the following
new ground of rejection against Appellant’s claims 6, 8, 30, 32, 49, and 51.
Claims 6, 8, 30, 32, 49, and 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Clancy in view of Binstead.
Regarding claims 8, 32, and 51, we found supra that Clancy failed to
disclose that the conductive trace width is less than the width of a pixel.
Similarly, for claims 6, 30, and 49, we found supra that Clancy failed to
teach or suggest that the width of the traces is less than 12 micrometers.
However, Binstead teaches (col. 7, ll. 47-50) that wires with a diameter
between 10 and 25 micrometers are invisible to the naked eye when used in
a touchscreen. Since Clancy teaches (col. 5, ll. 26-32) that the trace size
should be selected so as not to interfere with the underlying image, and
Binstead teaches that a diameter of 10 to 25 micrometers is invisible to the
naked eye, it would have been obvious to use a trace width between 10 and
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013