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
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007