Appeal No. 97-2422
Application 07/939,720
considerations, in view of our earlier discussion with respect to
the size relationships actually recited in the second substrate
clause of claim 1 on appeal, the embodiment shown in Figure 16A
and 16B (noted at page 2 of the reply brief) clearly fall within
this interpretation as well. The top substrate 331 in Figure 16A
is of smaller size than the lower substrate 330 in this figure.
The discussion beginning at column 15, line 8 again indicates
that the active matrix display elements and the drivers per se
are on the same substrate as is apparently shown in the two
figures. Between the two showings in this figure only the wires
338 exit the lower substrate 330 to be attached to the mounting
substrate 335. It is thus apparent that there are no external
circuits and that all circuits are contained within the window of
common aperture 340, thus indicating that the liquid crystal
material 333 would therefore fill the space and cover all of the
circuits including the driver circuits and the liquid crystal
drive circuits to the extent recited at the end of claim 1 on
appeal.
Even though Misawa may be interpreted as only suggesting but
not explicitly showing the noted features with respect to the two
portions of Figure 16, they are clearly shown in the first
embodiment, Figures 3 and 4 of Sawatsubashi, the second
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007