Appeal No. 95-3890
Application 08/023,665
characteristic of the display is recited only in the dependent
claims. Hamada provides no teachings relevant to the formation
of a display device having both the property of half a pitch
offset and the claimed mirror-symmetry. Thus, we find nothing in
Hamada which corrects the deficiencies in the teachings of Kuijk
and Piper. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of
dependent claims 2, 3 and 5 as proposed by the examiner based
upon the record before us.
In summary, we have not sustained either of the
rejections set forth by the examiner. Accordingly, the decision
of the examiner rejecting claims 1-5 is reversed.
REVERSED
)
STANLEY M. URYNOWICZ, JR. )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007