Appeal No. 1998-0693
Application No. 08/387,583
specification, the display in the admitted prior art is not electrically interconnected to the
electro-optical mirror operation. Appellant argues the O’Farrell reference, but we make no
findings thereto, since it is not applied by the examiner in the rejection. (See brief at page
8.)
Appellant argues that Nicholson discloses merely an electro-optic display and does
not teach or suggest a mirror in combination thereto. (See brief at page 8.) Appellant
further argues that there is a lack of motivation to use a colored display in a mirror where
accurate color reflections are expected. (See brief at pages 8-9.) We agree with
appellant, but note that claim 1 recites an electro-optic display not a mirror. Therefore, this
argument is not persuasive to claim 1 and the claims grouped therewith. We agree with
appellant with respect to claims 11 and 32 and their respective groupings of claims as to
the use in a mirror.
Appellant argues that “[u]nlike the Nicholson patent which teaches only conductive
patterns defining display elements, claims 1 and 6 define an overall conductive layer on
opposite sides of the electro-optic medium . . . claims 1 and 6 define a display which is
defined by individual conductive display elements patterned on both [sic, at least one in
claim 1] of the conductive layers and which are surrounded
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007