Appeal No. 2003-0502
Application No. 09/280,955
The “first substrate” is element 2. The “second substrate” is element 3. The
“driving ICS” are elements 6-10, and the “third substrate” is element 12.
The examiner recognizes that APA does not disclose that the driving ICS are
mounted generally in a row in a first direction parallel to one side of the second
substrate so that longer sides of the driving ICS are aligned in a direction parallel to one
side of the second substrate. The examiner turns to Yomogihara for a disclosure, in
Figures 2-4, of placing driving ICS at the position claimed, and refers to column 6, lines
17-55, of Yomogihara. The examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to
have the driving ICS mounted as claimed “since such a modification would have
involved a mere change in the re-arranging of the system” [sic, answer-page 3] and a
“change in re-arranging is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill
in the art, absent unexpected results” [sic, answer-page 3].
For their part, appellants contend that the examiner has not made out a prima
facie case of obviousness. In particular, appellants argue that the examiner has not
considered the claimed subject matter as a whole in that claim 1 requires, inter alia,
“connection terminals being arranged in the area for mounting the driving ICS at
positions by shorter sides . . .” That is, while the claim addresses the arrangement of
connection terminals in the area for mounting the driving ICS, rather than the location of
the driving ICs themselves, the examiner only addresses the modifying claim language,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007