Appeal No. 1998-0564
Application 08/359,840
We are unpersuaded by any reasoning set forth by the
examiner in the Advisory Action mailed on August 13, 1997, and
the answer as to the obviousness of the placement of the
claimed opaque conductive film in the manner recited in each
of the independent claims on appeal. Matsueda sets forth
essentially what appellant admits to be the basic prior art
structure for liquid crystal display elements, per se.
Appellant’s
quoted portions from the brief as it relates to Yanagisawa is
a
accurate generalization of the showings in Figures 7 and 8 of
this reference. Yanagisawa is explicit in indicating the
location of the comparable conductive film 28 to that which is
claimed to be either below both the pixel electrode 12 and
signal and scanning lines 20 and 24 or both above the pixel
electrode 12 and the scanning lines 20 and 24.
The Examiner does not present to us additional teaching
references to indicate the desirability of placing the claimed
conductive film in the manner recited in each independent
claim on appeal between the pixel electrodes and the scanning
and/or signal lines. The bottom line thrust of the examiner’s
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007