Appeal No. 2005-2287
Application No. 09/767,588
Ohashi with regard to claims 2 and 16, but adding Nakanowatari to
Saito with regard to claims 6, 8, 18, and 19.
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the respective
positions of appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires that
the four corners of a single prior art document describe every
element of the claimed invention, either expressly or inherently,
such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could practice
the invention without undue experimentation. In re Paulsen, 30
F.3d 1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The examiner contends that claims 1, 9, 17, 20, and 21 are
anticipated by Saito by the disclosure of a first substrate DSUB,
a second substrate USUB, liquid crystal LC sealed in a gap
between the substrates, a sealing material SL provided outside
the display area for sealing the LC in the gap and forming an
open injection hole INJ, post structures SPC-P for controlling
the gap, and an end sealing material SL for sealing the injection
hole INJ after the LC is sealed in.
Appellants argue that Saito fails to teach or suggest the
claimed “sealing material provided outside a display area for
sealing said liquid crystal in said gap, and forming an open
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007