Appeal No. 2006-1771
Application No. 10/407,247
We agree with the appellant’s arguments. The record before us simply does not support
any of the examiner’s conclusions concerning the amendment dated March 2, 2004. The so-
called admission by the appellant is nothing more than a statement by the appellant that the
amendment to claim 26 should not be treated as being related to patentability of the claim. In
any event, nothing in the brief statement made by the appellant in the amendment supports the
examiner’s proposed wholesale modification of Okamoto “to add a phase plate or half wave
plate to provide satisfactory phase plate performance for improved display performance.” Since
Okamoto neither teaches nor would have suggested to the skilled artisan the addition of a half
wave plate with the specifically claimed slow axis to a LCD, the obviousness rejection of claims
26 through 36 is reversed.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 26 through 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
reversed.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007