Appeal No. 2006-3016
Application No. 10/212,240
In determining the subject matter encompassed by claim 1, we agree with the
Examiner that the claim merely requires the screen panel be generally flat with the
front face substantially coextensive to its rear face. However, Mitani does show
panel 2 which, although is shaped as a box by short sidewalls (Mitani, Figures 7b
and 8b; col. 7, ll. 4-7), is generally flat and has substantially coextensive front and
rear faces. Mitani also shows a plurality of fasteners 13 and 27 for mounting the
two lenses between the front panel and the cabinet main body, which are provided
at the edge of the front panel and project rearwardly from the screen panel (Mitani,
col. 7, ll. 8-10).
We also remain unconvinced by Appellant’s argument that because the edge
walls truncate the rear face, it cannot be coextensive with the front face (Br. 11).
As pointed out by the Examiner, the presence of the edge walls does not preclude
the front face being substantially coextensive to the rear face or the fasteners
projecting rearwardly from panel 2 of Mitani (Answer 16). Accordingly, the
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 1, 11, 14 and 21 over Mitani is sustained.
35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of the claims
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013