Appeal No. 2006-1771
Application No. 10/407,247
a pixel electrode formed on the first substrate and corresponding to each pixel, the pixel
electrode is formed of a reflective conductive material; and
wherein a slow axis of the half wave plate is disposed at an angle “θ” from a transmissive
axis of the polarizer.
The reference relied on by the examiner is:
Okamoto et al. (Okamoto) 6,281,952 Aug. 28, 2001
(filed Dec. 22, 1998)
Claims 26 through 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Okamoto.
Reference is made to an amendment filed March 2, 2004, the briefs and the answer for
the respective positions of the appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us, and we will reverse the
obviousness rejection of claims 26 through 36.
In the March 2, 2004 amendment, the appellant changed the claim 26 limitation “a
retardation film and a second polarizer that are formed in series on the second substrate” to “ a
half wave plate and a second polarizer that are formed in series on the second substrate.” In the
remarks section of the amendment, appellant stated that the amendment was made “to correct a
minor informality,” and that the amendment is “unrelated to patentability” (page 7).
In the statement of the rejection, the examiner has made findings (answer, pages 3
through 5) that Okamoto describes all of the LCD device structure set forth in claim 1 with the
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007