Appeal No. 1997-1164
Application No. 08/279,304
stand or fall with claim 2 (Brief, pages 13 and 16).
According to the examiner (Answer, page 3), Nagase
discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 through 3, 7 and
8 except for an edge lit or off-normal light source. Kashima
discloses a panel backlight that locates a linear light source
4 in close proximity to an end face of a transmissive plate
(translation, pages 15 and 16). The examiner concludes
(Answer, page 3) that “it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the liquid crystal art to substitute the
edge light source of Kashima et al. for the light source of
Nagase to have small size, uniform brightness and high
efficiency.” None of the advantages ascribed to edge lighting
by the examiner can be found in the teachings of Kashima.
More importantly, Kashima does not express any advantages of
edge lighting over other forms of lighting. In summary, we
agree with the appellant (Brief, pages 17 and 18) that the
examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness
of claims 1 through 3, 7 and 8. As a result thereof, the 35
U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1 through 3, 7 and 8 is
reversed.
DECISION
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007