Appeal No. 2000-1201 Page 8
Application No. 08/817,825
tuned color filter for the reference’s filter. His broad,
conclusory statement of “further purify[ing] the illuminating
light to the desired pixels to thereby provide highly
saturated pixel colors,” standing alone, is not evidence.
Relying on Loiseaux merely to teach that holography “is a
common way to form . . . diffractive structures,” (Final
Rejection at 3), the examiner fails to allege, let alone show,
that the secondary reference cures the defect of the primary
reference. Absent evidence that the Loiseaux’s display device
would benefit from a tuned color filter, we are not persuaded
of that teachings from the prior art would have suggested
combining the substitution. Therefore, we reverse the
rejection of claims 3 and 10-12 as obvious over Loiseaux in
view of Loiseaux.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the rejection of claims 3 and 10-12 under
§ 103(a) is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007