Appeal No. 1999-2590
Application 08/618,120
Specification, page 3, lines 23-26. Moreover, the individual
dye-cut pieces of screen are relatively simple to install and
do not substantially increase the difficulty of maintenance
of the resulting display. Specification, page 3, lines 27-29.
Appellants’ independent claim 1, reproduced below, is
representative of the invention:
1. An LED display device comprising:
a plurality of module block LED arrays, each of said module
LED arrays including at least one LED on a selected face
thereof, and
substantially each of said module block LED arrays
including a respective individual wire screen attached to said
selected face immediately over said at least one LED whereby
light emanating from said at least one LED passes through said
wire screen.
In rejecting Appellants’ claims, the Examiner relies on
Appellants’ admitted prior art and the following references:
Hobbins et al. (Hobbins) 4,701,801 Oct.
20, 1987
Clarke et al. (Clarke) 5,139,850 Aug. 18,
1992
Shetty et al. (Shetty) 5,443,510 Aug. 22,
1995 Claims 1-4 and 6-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being obvious over the admitted prior art and
Hobbins. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over the admitted prior art, Hobbins and Shetty.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007