Appeal No. 1999-2337
Application 08/655,257
discloses using a planar display. Examiner point us to figures
1 and 2, label 4. On page 8 of the Examiner’s Answer in the
response to argument, the Examiner states again that Kuga
clearly shows a planar display and points to figures 1 and 2,
label 4, and figure 6, label 16. The Examiner further states
that the claims do not require a single planar display as
Appellants argue.
On page 5 of the Reply Brief, Appellants respond to the
Examiner’s argument by stating that the term “planar” used in
the claims cannot read on a plurality of flat panels because
of the common meaning of the term “planar” and the statutory
requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph.
Appellants point to the common dictionary definition of
“planar” as being “of relating to or laying in a plane.”
Appellants further argue that throughout their specification,
Appellants make it clear that the term “planar” is intended to
convey a two-dimensional display “laying” in a single plane.
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s interpretation that the
Kuga’s plurality of stacked planar panels read on Appellants’
claim limitation, “planar display” is unjustified under 35
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007