Appeal No. 2004-2288
Application No. 10/084,723
Claims 1 through 3, 6, 8 through 11 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by the disclosure of Nishizawa.
Claims 4 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the disclosure of Nishizawa. Claims 7 and
12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combined disclosures of Nishizawa and Shanks.
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and
applied prior art, including all of the arguments and evidence
advanced by both the examiner and appellant in support of their
respective positions. This review has led us to conclude that
the examiner’s aforementioned rejections are not well founded.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner’s aforementioned
rejections for essentially those reasons set forth in the Brief
and the Reply Brief. We add the following primarily for emphasis
and completeness.
The examiner takes the position that Nishizawa teaches
(Answer, pages 3-4):
3. Referring to claim 1, a flexible matrix array device
comprising: a thin film matrix circuit carried on the
surface of a flexible substrate, (Figure 3b #3), which
matrix circuit, (Figure 1), includes semiconductor devices,
(Figure 3b # 1a, 2a, 3a, & 4a[,] Col. 2[,] Lines 24-32),
arranged in a regular array and occupying respective first
areas, (Figure 3b examiner’s label #11), of the substrate,
(Figure 3b #3), and pixel electrodes, (Figure 1 #2),
correspondingly coupled to each of the semiconductor
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007