Appeal No. 2003-0502
Application No. 09/280,955
“mounting the driving ICs at positions . . .,” and ignored the immediately preceding claim
language, “connection terminals being arranged in the area for” [principal brief-pages
6-7]. Appellants assert that the “novelty in the present invention lies in the structural
arrangement of the connection terminals” [principal brief-page 8]. Moreover. Appellants
point out that Yomogihara also does not suggest the claimed arrangement because, as
Figure 4 of that patent discloses, a row of connection terminals 27 is perpendicular to
the long side of IC 22, rather than parallel to the long side of the IC, as claimed.
We agree with appellants.
First, the examiner’s reason for making the proposed combination, viz., “mere
change in the re-arranging of the system,” is faulty. A rearrangement of parts may, in
fact, offer a patentable invention if that rearrangement results in a structure producing
an unobvious advantage. In the instant invention, such an advantage is obtained and
this has not been disputed by the examiner. Rather than having the width of the
connection terminals become a limiting factor to how much the mounting area width
may be reduced, the structural arrangement of the instant invention solves this problem
“by arranging the connection terminals in a row parallel to the long side of the driving
ICs, thereby allowing the mounting area to be reduced to a width that only needs to be
capable of accomodating the width of short side of the IC itself and/or the cumulative
width of the lead wires” [principal brief-page 12]. Thus, the examiner cannot reach a
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007