Appeal 2006-3013
Application 10/367,849
ISSUES
Appellant contends that the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is in error. Appellant argues that it is not obvious to modify
Dingwall using Kawaguchi’s teachings. Appellant reasons Kawaguchi
involves liquid crystal devices which do not need a power feed line and that
Kawaguchi teaches increasing the width of connecting terminals to reduce
connection resistance and not line width within the display area as claimed.
(Br. 9). Appellant argues that “Dingwall and Kawaguchi contain no
teaching or suggestion of the advantages realized by a device according to
claim 14.” (Br. 10). Finally, Appellant argues that the Examiner’s
reasoning as to why one would be motivated to combine the references is
based upon hindsight reasoning as the references do not provide the
motivation asserted by the Examiner.
The Examiner asserts that the rejection is proper. The Examiner states
that Kawaguchi was cited to show that the resistance of a power line will be
reduced when the width of the power line is increased. (Answer 6). Further,
the Examiner states:
Even though Kawaguchi does not teach a line width of a portion of
the one power-feed line being set to be wider than that of a portion of
the one scanning line, Kawaguchi teaches the width of power feed line
would be increased in order to reduce the resistance of the power feed
line (see column 15, lines 24-32). There are only three width
relationships between the power feed line and a data line in a display
device: a) the width of power feed line is wider than a data line; b) the
width of power feed line is same as a data line and c) the width of
power feed line is narrower than a data line. Even though Dingwall
does not point out the width relationship between the power feed line
and a scanning line, Dingwall should choose the width of power feed
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013