Appeal No. 1996-1387 Page 13
Application No. 08/110,269
The examiner erred in determining the content of the
prior art. As aforementioned, he asserts that Ogino teaches
cooling a liquid crystal. It is true that the reference
teaches the use of a coolant 39. The coolant is charged into
a space between a lens element 36 and a Fresnel lens 15a.
Col. 9, ll. 42-44. Rather than cooling a shutter as claimed,
however, Ogino cools a Fresnel lens and lens element. The
examiner has not recognized and accounted for the difference
between cooling the reference’s Fresnel lens and lens element
and cooling the claims’ LC shutter. Furthermore, the examiner
has not identified a suggestion elsewhere in the prior art to
cool the LC shutter.
For the foregoing reasons, the examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness. Therefore, we
reverse the rejection of claims 2-4. Next, we address claims
7 and 8.
Claims 7 and 8
Regarding claims 7 and 8, the appellant argues, “‘matte’
means ‘having a rough or granular surface.’" (Appeal Br. at
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007