Appeal No. 2002-1849 Page 14
Application No. 09/116,710
or a dark color. Nor are we persuaded by the examiner's
assertion, (answer, pages 9 and 10) that the chromatic adjustment
of Branca is directed to a hue that is "non-white" and that the
"non-white" can be considered to be the "dark color" referred to
in the claims. Firstly, the "non-white" color referred to by
Branca is referring to the color of the image tainted by the
polarizers, without correction by the coloring elements
(pigments) and the holographic diffuser. Secondly, the color
referred to is not the intrinsic coloration of the screen of the
LCD display. Thirdly, the fact that the color is "non-white"
does not make the color "black, grey or a dark color as recited
in appellants' claim 2.
From all of the above, we find that the examiner has failed
to establish a prima facie case of obviousness of the invention
set forth in claim 2. Accordingly, the rejection of independent
claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed. Independent claim
9 identically recites "a property of a surface of the holographic
screen is that it has an intrinsic coloration that is one of
black, grey and a dark color in ambient light." Therefore, the
rejection of claim 9, as well as dependent claims 3-8 and 10-13
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007