Appeal No. 97-3246
Application 08/384,090
that the patent even constitutes a viable reference because of
the date of publication and the common assignee vis-a-vis the
instant application. Finally, the patent appears to be
directed to gas discharge displays rather than to PALCs as is
the instant claimed invention. In any event, the examiner’s
statements, at pages 4-5 of the answer, regarding this patent
appear to have no relevance to the rejection at hand.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claims
11 through 13 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Further, we
will not sustain the rejection of claims 14 and 16 under 35
U.S.C. § 103
since neither Matsumoto nor Tanamachi provides for the
deficiency of Iwama, i.e., neither reference teaches or
suggests the claimed “anodically bonded” limitation.
We note, in passing, however, that with regard to claim
14, even though the combination of Iwama and Matsumoto does
not meet the “anodically bonded” limitation of claim 12, and
even though we would agree with appellants that it would not
have been obvious to even make the combination since Iwama is
directed to PALCs and Matsumoto is directed to gas discharge
lamps, we do not agree with appellants that Matsumoto’s
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007