Ex parte SCHRAIVOGEL et al. - Page 7

          Appeal No. 94-3349                                                          
          Application 07/757,085                                                      

          Appellants also argue that Blonder does not disclose                        
          elevations but grooves.  This argument is likewise not persuasive           
          because as noted above Blonder discloses that the grooves could             
          be replaced with protrusions.  In addition, in our view, the top            
          of each L-shaped groove 44 may be considered a protrusion.                  
          Claims 9, 10, 34 and 36-40                                                  
          We find that Kubo discloses, as depicted in Figure 1, a                     
          display device having an electro-optical medium ie. liquid                  
          crystal 11 between two supporting bodies 4 and 9 (Col. 1, lines             
          22-23).  The supporting bodies 4 and 9 are provided with drive              
          electrodes 9, 10, (Col. 1, lines 25-26).  The drive electrode 9             
          is electrically connected to wiring 12 which extends beyond the             
          liquid crystal cell so as to electrically connect to a                      
          semiconductor substrate 6 through solder 5 (Col. 1, lines 32-36).           
          The examiner stated:                                                        
          It would have been obvious to one of ordinary                               
          skill in the liquid crystal art to have substituted                         
          the "L" shaped textured landing pads of figure 5 of                         
          Blonder et al. for the landings in the device of                            
          Kubo et al. to allow for improved cold bonding.                             
          [Examiner's Answer at page 5]                                               
          We agree with the reasoning of the examiner and thus, we will               
          sustain the rejection as to claims 9, 10, 34 and 36-40.                     
          Appellants argue that there is no suggestion in Kubo or                     
          Blonder to employ an interconnection structure as disclosed in              


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007