Appeal No. 2002-1698
Application No. 09/401,691
solution. Because these properties or capabilities are
inseparable from the monomers and polymers defined by the claim
under review, they cannot be ignored or dismissed as the examiner
has done.
Under the circumstances recounted above, we also cannot
sustain the examiner’s section 102 rejection of claim 12 as being
anticipated by Leising.
The section 103 rejection of claim 13 over Leising in view
of Andersson likewise cannot be sustained. We do not find and
the examiner does not contend that Andersson supplies the above
discussed deficiencies of Leising. Therefore, even if these
references were combined in the manner proposed by the examiner,
the resulting display device would not include polymers of the
type required by here rejected dependent claim 13 and by parent
claim 12 for the reasons previously discussed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007