Appeal No. 1998-2260
Application No. 08/535,685
application, but we find no criticality in transferring the
use of the alignment technique of Harvey to a flat panel
display, and Appellant has not shown any such criticality or
unobviousness. Therefore, we sustain the obviousness
rejection of claim 1 and its dependent grouped claims 2, 3 and
17.
With respect to claim 18, we agree with Appellant [reply
brief, page 2] that Harvey does not show or suggest the method
of forming a flat display panel which comprises the steps of
“forming an optical path through a first substrate . . ., the
first substrate being part of one of an anode and a cathode of
the display,” “forming . . . a second substrate . . ., the
second substrate being part of the other of the anode and the
cathode of the display,” and “sealing together the first and
second substrates . . . .” The Examiner has not provided any
evidence to support obviousness of these steps, and we find
none. Therefore, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection
of claim 18 and its dependent and grouped claims 19 and 26 to
28.
Claims 4 to 5, 14 to 16, and 20 to 25
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007