Appeal No. 97-1932
Application 08/028,047
the rejection of claims 27 and 28, we sustain the rejection of
these claims as formulated by the examiner.
We now consider the rejection of claims 13 and 14
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Kishino and
Shmulovich. The examiner cites Kishino as teaching a display
screen having a transparent face plate, a conductive layer and
a phosphor layer. The examiner notes that Kishino does not
disclose the presence of pockets filled with the conductive
and phosphor layers [answer, page 4]. The examiner cites
Shmulovich as teaching the pocket recitations of independent
claim 13 and contends that it would have been obvious to
modify the Kishino face plate to have pockets as taught by
Shmulovich [Id.].
Appellant argues that Shmulovich uses a reflective
conductive layer rather than the transparent conductive layer
as recited in claim 13 [brief, pages 16-17]. The examiner
responded to this argument by stating that “it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a
transparent conductive layer in the modified display device of
Kishino and Shmulovich since the modified display device is a
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007