Appeal No. 96-0763 Page 7
Application No. 07/840,345
reading the claims in light of the specification would be
possessed with a reasonable degree of certainty as to the
subject matter encompassed within the claims. Even, if we
accept the examiners analysis that the inorganic layer could be
another ITO film, the additional permutation would not result
in an indefinite claim. Only a broader interpretation of the
claimed subject matter would be the result. Accordingly, the
examiner has failed to establish with respect to the phrase
“forming an inorganic film on the colored layer” that one of
ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the scope of
the claims containing this phrase.
Based on the above analysis, the rejection under § 112 is
not sustained.
The Rejections under § 103
The sole issue before us is whether the examiner has
established a prima facie case of obviousness based upon the
art of record. An analysis of the primary reference to Hatano
requires us to conclude that the sequence of layers used as a
liquid crystal display meets the requirements of the claimed
subject matter. We find that figure 4 of Hatano discloses a
transparent substrate 12. A conductive film 13 is formed on
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007