Appeal No. 2006-1654
Application No. 09/929,488
VI. Lastly, we consider 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 Ohta ‘053 [answer, page 18].
We note that appellant has failed to specifically traverse this rejection
or point out any alleged differences between the claims and the Ohta ‘116
and Ohta ‘053 references relied upon by the examiner to modify the primary
Baur reference [answer, pages 18-21]. 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 [id.]. 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 Ohta ‘053.
In summary, we have sustained the examiner’s rejection of all claims
on appeal. Therefore, the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1-17 is
affirmed.
21
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007