Appeal No. 95-0647
Application No. 08/026,246
to improve the luminance uniformity of the display.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Maple 4,132,919 Jan.
2, 1979
Daiku 4,376,829 Mar.
15, 1983
Hodges 4,755,868 July
5, 1988
Claims 1, 5, 8, 10 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Hodges in view of Daiku.
Claims 2, 9 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Hodges in view of Daiku and Maple.
Reference is made to the final rejection, the briefs and
the answer for the respective positions of the appellants and
the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 2,
5, 8 through 11 and 13.
As indicated supra, this application is a continuation of
Application 07/459,915, filed January 2, 1990. In Appeal
Number 93-0598 in the parent application, the Board affirmed
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007