Appeal No. 2002-0328
Application No. 09/250,324
U.S. 1, 17, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966), and to provide a reason why
one having ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been
led to modify the prior art or to combine prior art references to
arrive at the claimed invention. See also In re Rouffet, 149
F.3d 1350, 1355, 47 USPQ2d 1453, 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Such
evidence is required in order to establish a prima facie case.
In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223 USPQ 785, 787-88
(Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Cofer, 354 F.2d 664, 668, 148 USPQ 268,
271-72 (CCPA 1966).
After reviewing Wei, we agree with Appellants’ assertion
that the claimed pixel structure including a patterned display
material and a connecting via extending through the pixel
structure, is absent in the reference. Wei relates to a light
emitting device display module that includes a plurality of first
electrodes, light emitting media and strips of second electrode
(col. 3, lines 1-14). As depicted in Figures 3 and 4, Wei
connects first electrodes 14 and second electrodes 16 to the row
and column drivers and control circuits 22 through a plurality of
traces within vias 24 formed in PCB 20 (col. 5, lines 42-67).
Therefore, the pixel array of Wei is formed by a continuous,
instead of a patterned, display material which excludes the vias
from the pixel structure area and limits them only to the
peripheral area outside the pixel structure.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007