Appeal No. 1998-0693
Application No. 08/387,583
by a non-conductive border.” (See brief at page 9.) Appellant further argues that
Nicholson
fails to disclose even overall first and second conductive layers but instead
is limited to an electrochromic display with only display elements formed
thereon. None of the prior art, including Nicholson, discloses an electro-
optic display in which the entire display includes conductive surfaces to
which a first voltage is applied and patterned display segments for creating
a different electric field between the display elements and the electric field
applied between the overall conductive layers by the first voltage. (See brief
at page 10.)
We agree with appellant that, taking the claim as a whole, the examiner has not provided a
teaching or convincing line of reasoning why it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide conductive segments in the layers of
conductive material and “for selectively applying voltages to individual ones of said display
elements of said one conductive layer to create an electric field between said elements
and said other conductive layer different than said first electric field to provide a
contrasting display” as recited in the language of claim 1.
The examiner postulates many modifications and variations to the APA and
Nicholson while also discussing various other references, which are expressly not used in
the rejection. (See prior Office action, Paper No. 6, at pages 4-5 and answer at page 4-6.)
We disagree with the examiner’s conclusions and find that the examiner has not
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007