Appeal No. 1998-0495
Application No. 08/324,540
material is known (as explained in Doane) to function.
Therefore, we find Yamazaki to be merely cumulative. Since we
have affirmed the rejection of claim 42, we likewise will
sustain the rejection of claim 43.
Claims 8, 10 through 12, 14 through 18, 21, 24 through
28, 30 through 36, 40, and 44 all recite that each pixel
electrode "is formed over an intersection of the bit and word
lines." The examiner relies on Yamazaki's Figures 15, 18, and
22 as illustrating pixel electrodes each formed over an
intersection of a data line and a gate line. The examiner
states (Answer, pages 4, 7, and 11) that the motivation for
using such a structure is to improve the size and the quality
of the display.
For a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner is
required to provide a reason from some teaching, suggestion or
implication in the prior art as a whole, or knowledge
generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, why
one having ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been
led to modify the prior art to arrive at the claimed
invention. Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley, 837 F.2d 1044,
1052, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 488
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007