Appeal No. 2002-0328
Application No. 09/250,324
10, from which claim 44 depends, is patentable (brief, page 36).
We note that although the Examiner appears to have inadvertently
omitted claim 44 from the statement of the rejection, the summary
page of the final Office Action indicates that the Examiner
intended to include claim 44 in the rejection of its base claim
10. Relying on Mazurek for disclosing a tiled display device,
the Examiner appears to have related the features of claim 44 to
the embodiment depicted in Figure 3 of Mazurek. Additionally,
absent any separate arguments by Appellants, claim 44 falls with
claim 10. Nonetheless, Figure 3, does disclose a plurality of
modules or tiles wherein the edges of tiles mate with the
adjacent tiles to form seamless junctions along each of the edges
(col. 6, lines 58-67). Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 rejection of claim 44 over Wei, Spindt, Mazurek and
Wakitani.
16
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007