Appeal No. 2003-1509
Application 09/853,575
record). The difference between the subject matter of
claims 1-3, 5, 19, and 20, and Crossland is that Crossland does
not use an optical fiber containing a notch to illuminate the LC
cells and the luminescent material. One of ordinary skill in the
art would have been motivated to substitute the substantially
parallel array 46 of notched optical fibers 48 of Appeldorn '876
for the backing layer 17 of Crossland since Appeldorn '876
expressly teaches that the optical fiber array can be used as an
illumination source for an LCD. Alternatively, the difference
between the subject matter of claims 1-3, 5, 19, and 20, and
Appeldorn '876 is that Appeldorn '876 does not illuminate a
luminescent material with the light from the notched optical
fibers. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been
motivated to provide phosphors at the viewing side of the LC
shutters in Appeldorn '876 to increase the viewing angle in view
of the teachings in Crossland (p. 2, line 8, to p. 3, line 5).
Although appellants' first appeal brief (Paper No. 12),
ostensibly addressed the rejection of Crossland and
Appeldorn '643 (p. 2), the examiner found the arguments to be
directed to Appeldorn '876 and required a new brief (Paper
No. 13). Since the first appeal brief refers to figures 1, 9,
and 10 and column 12 of Appeldorn (Paper No. 12, p. 6), and since
Appeldorn '643 does not have figures 9 and 10 or a column 12, but
Appeldorn '876 does, it is clear that the brief was, in fact,
- 16 -
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007