Appeal No. 1997-2682
Application No. 08/382,937
emitted light from a luminescent layer through an interference
filter instead of a cholesteric filter as presently claimed.
To address this deficiency, the Examiner turns to Adams which
discloses the advantages of cholesteric filters as opposed to
interference filters (e.g. Adams, column 1, lines 36-63 and
column 8, lines 24-47) and Shanks which suggests the
interchangeability of interference and cholesteric filters
(e.g. Shanks, column 3, lines 38-40). In the Examiner’s line
of reasoning (Answer, page 4), the skilled artisan would have
found it obvious to employ a cholesteric filter in the device
of Welker instead of an interference filter to facilitate
tuning of the filter over a large range of bandwidths in view
of the teachings of Adams and Shanks. Barnik is added to the
combination as supplying a teaching of utilizing a 8/4 element
to convert polarized light to linearly polarized light to
achieve compatibility with a LCD device.
In making the obviousness rejection, the Examiner,
therefore, has pointed out the teachings of Welker, Adams,
Shanks, and Barnik, has reasonably indicated the perceived
differences between this applied prior art and the claimed
invention, and has provided reasons as to how and why this
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007