Appeal No. 2002-0328
Application No. 09/250,324
combination with the display device of Wei wherein each tile
includes a circuit board and the driving circuitry as taught by
Mazurek. As pointed out by the Examiner (answer, pages 5-8), the
motivation is in the benefits outlined by each reference such as
smooth display image of Wakitani, the close proximity of the
driving circuitry to the display structure of Mazurek and the
reduced size of the display module by using the connections
through the via holes of Wei. Therefore, we also sustain the 35
U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 11-13 and 15, which stand or
fall together, over Wei, Spindt, Mazurek and Wakitani.
Regarding the rejection of claims 18, 19, 22, 25 and 26,
Appellants rely on the arguments made with respect to the base
claims 10, 16 and 20 above and further argue that Wei and Spindt
fail to disclose a tiled display while the timing circuitry on
individual tiles is also absent in Mazurek (brief, page 27). As
discussed above, Wei is relied on for teaching the via holes for
connecting the contacts of the matrix display with the contacts
on the top surface of the circuit board wherein timing circuitry
is indeed present on the circuit board in each tile of Mazurek.
Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 18, 19, 22,
25 and 26, which fall together, over Wei, Spindt, Mazurek and
Wakitani is sustained.
12
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007