Appeal No. 2002-0328
Application No. 09/250,324
Turning now to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 23
and 24, Appellants point out that the recited plurality of
springs which are mounted in the display frame are neither taught
nor suggested by the applied prior art (brief, page 28).
Similarly, with respect to the rejection of claims 27 and 28,
Appellants argue that the claimed “means for securing the glass
substrate of the display sections of the plurality of tiles to
the transparent front panel” is neither taught nor suggested by
the references (brief, page 30). With respect to the rejection
of claims 33 and 34, on the other hand, Appellants argue that the
references do not disclose or suggest a single electronics
section with a plurality of display sections or a single display
section with a plurality of electronics sections (brief, page
32). We note that since the Examiner neither identifies any
teachings or suggestions related to such features, nor do we find
any in the references, we cannot sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claims 23, 27 and 33, as well as claims 24, 28 and
34 which depend respectively therefrom, over Wei, Spindt, Mazurek
and Wakitani.
With respect to the rejection of claims 35 and 40,
Appellants concede that Spindt does relate to a
cathodoluminescent display, but argue that there is a one-to-one
correspondence between the cathodes and the pixels formed by the
13
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007