Ex parte JOUBERT et al. - Page 8




          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