Appeal No. 2003-1411
Application No. 09/292,096
Claims 2 through 4, 6, 7, 9 and 11 through 171 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Ueda.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ueda in view of Hibino.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ueda in view of Koninckx.
Reference is made to the briefs (paper numbers 15 and 18),
an early Office Action (paper number 9), the final rejection
(paper number 12) and the answer (paper number 16) for the
respective positions of the appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the indefiniteness rejection of claims 2, 4,
7, 9 and 10, sustain the anticipation rejection of claims 2
through 4, 6, 7, 9 and 11 through 17, reverse the obviousness
rejection of claim 5 and sustain the obviousness rejection of
claim 10.
Turning first as we must to the indefiniteness rejection,
the examiner contends (answer, page 3) that the term “display”
lacks antecedent basis because the phrase “display component” was
1 After submission of the brief, the examiner withdrew the
anticipation rejection of claim 8 (answer, page 4).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007