Appeal No. 2006-1654
Application No. 09/929,488
set forth by the examiner in the rejection. Because we have considered
claim 1 as the representative claim for this rejection, we will also sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claims 2-7 and 10-17.
V. We consider next the examiner’s rejection of claims 8 and 9 as being
unpatentable over the teachings of Baur in view of Ohta ‘116 and further in
view of Admitted Prior Art [answer, page 16].
We note that appellant has failed to specifically traverse this rejection
or point out any alleged differences between the claims and the Ohta ‘116
reference and the Admitted Prior Art relied upon by the examiner to modify
the primary Baur reference [answer, pages 16 and 17]. After carefully
reviewing the evidence before us, we agree with the examiner that instant
prior art figs. 1A and 1B (i.e., Admitted Prior Art) teach the instant claimed
limitations as being common features of a conventional prior art Thin Film
Transistor (TFT) display [answer, pages 16 and 17]. 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 ‘116 and further in view of
Admitted Prior Art.
20
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007