Appeal No. 1997-1003
Application No. 08/188,145
having a pattern complementary to the electrode pattern of the
flex circuit. We find no suggestion in either reference to
include such a patterned planarizing layer, and the examiner
has provided no guidance. In fact, the examiner has failed to
specifically point out where any of the claimed limitations
are disclosed in the references. Accordingly, we cannot
sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 10.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through
5,
7 through 18, 32 through 34, and 36 through 38 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is reversed.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007