Appeal No. 2006-1654
Application No. 09/929,488
specification) relied upon by the examiner to modify the primary Baur
reference. After carefully reviewing the evidence before us, we agree with
the examiner that instant prior art figs. 1A and 1B teach the instant claimed
limitations as being common features of a conventional prior art Thin Film
Transistor (TFT) display [answer, page 7]. Accordingly, we will sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claims 8 and 9 as being unpatentable over the
teachings of Baur in view of Admitted Prior Art.
III. We consider next the examiner’s rejection of claims 8 and 9 as being
unpatentable over the teachings of Baur in view of Ohta ‘053 [answer, page
9].
We note that appellant has failed to specifically traverse this rejection
or point out any alleged differences between the claims and the Ohta ‘053
reference relied upon by the examiner to modify the primary Baur reference.
After carefully reviewing the evidence before us, we agree with the examiner
that figs. 2 and 3 of Ohta ‘053 teach the instant claimed features as being
common features of a conventional prior art Thin Film Transistor (TFT)
display [answer, pages 9-12]. Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claims 8 and 9 as being unpatentable over the teachings of Baur
in view of Ohta ‘053.
17
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007