Appeal No. 2005-1037
Application No. 09/904,269
Baker teaches a method whereby an LCD tile and cover panel are combined.
Col. 2, line 60-col. 3, line 19. The two are held in place by vacuum chucks. Col. 2, line
60-col. 3, line 19. In the examiner’s view, it would have been obvious to flatten the
sheets or hold them in a flat configuration during manufacturing to eliminate wrinkles
and defects within the apparatus. Examiner’s answer, pages 5-6. Also, the examiner
argues that when the sheets in Baker are subjected to a vacuum, they are temporarily
flattened to some degree. Examiner’s answer, page 6.
In the appellant’s view, sheets are usually processed unflattened and it would not
be obvious to use a vacuum chuck to flatten the sheets. Reply brief, page 2. Further,
the appellant argues that if a sheet were sufficiently stiff, a vacuum chuck would not
flatten it. Reply brief, page 2. So, Baker’s invention does not flatten the sheet.
We hold that Baker teaches temporarily flattening a sheet. We note that while
Baker does not explicitly teach flattening a sheet for reducing warpage, it does teach
using a vacuum chuck to secure a sheet. Although the sheet may be stiff or thick,
under a vacuum chuck, in our view, it will be flattened to at least some degree. The
appellant has not specified the degree of flatness in claim 1.
In addition, the structure of appellant’s and Baker’s invention is essentially the
same. In both instances, a vacuum chuck holds a sheet in place during manufacture.
The only alleged difference is in the functional language of the appellant’s claims. In
addition to placing the sheet on a vacuum chuck, appellant claims the vacuum chuck
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007