Appeal No. 1996-0810
Application 08/259,354
the Revised Appeal Brief (Paper No. 29) (pages referred to2
as "Br__") and the Reply Brief (Paper No. 24) (pages
referred to as "RBr__") for a statement of Appellants'
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Appellants argue that Ota does not render anticipate or
render obvious "the claimed liquid crystal device having a
display capacitor with a first capacitance per unit area and
a cross-over capacitor with a second, lower capacitance per
unit area" (Br5) because "[Ota] instead has equal
capacitances at the cross-over locations and display
capacitor" (Br6). Appellants provided a Declaration Under
37 CFR § 1.132 by David D. Meyer (attached to the Amendment
After Final Rejection, Paper No. 14) explaining why Ota
discloses that the capacitance per unit area of the
cross-over capacitor and the display capacitor are the same.
The Examiner finds that "the capacitance of the
cross-over capacitor is less than the capacitance of the
The Revised Appeal Brief is identical to the original2
Brief filed July 21, 1995 (Paper No. 22), except that it
includes statements regarding the real party in interest and
related appeals and interferences.
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007