Appeal No. 96-1839 Page 3
Application No. 08/024,610
Claims 1, 3-6 and 8-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Abileah in view of Ukrainsky. Claims 1 and 3-7 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Abileah in view of Ukrainsky and McCartney.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the Examiner and the
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Examiner's
answer (Paper No. 21, mailed Jan. 24, 1996) for the Examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to the appellants’ brief (Paper No. 20, mailed Dec. 13, 1995)
for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the Examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Appellants argue that the claim limitation of the electroluminescent panel (as a back
light) is not met by the fluorescent lights taught in the prior art references applied against
the claims. (See brief at page 10.) We agree with appellants. The Examiner relies upon
the argument that the fluorescent light is an electroluminescent light source. We disagree
with the Examiner. After a review of the specification, the declaration by
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007