Appeal No. 2002-0328
Application No. 09/250,324
As discussed above, what the Examiner characterizes in Wei
as the patterned display material in a pixel structure (answer,
page 10), is actually an array of pixels formed of a continuous
display material between two sets of parallel first and second
electrodes. Thus, the reference does not disclose or suggest the
recited features of claim 1, nor the other dependent claims 2-9,
since the vias in Wei are positioned at the outside of the
display area and do not extend through the pixel structure.
Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1-9 over Wei
cannot be sustained.
Turning to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 10-28,
33-35 and 40 over Wei, Spindt, Mazurek and Wakitani, Appellants
point out that the Examiner has not indicated which references
apply to each specific claim since not all of the cited
references apply to each of the rejected claims (brief, page 19).
Nonetheless, with respect to claims 10, 16 and 20, Appellants
argue that the structure of Wei cannot be used in a tiled
structure as it discloses merely a stand alone display device
(brief, page 21). Appellants further point out that Spindt
cannot suggest a tiled display either because the reference is
concerned with forming a field emissive display which is formed
as a single display panel (id.). Additionally, Appellants argue
that although Mazurek is the only reference that discusses the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007