The rejections as presented by the Examiner are as follows:
1. Claims 15 and 17-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Tyler.
2. Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Tyler.
3. Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Tyler and Paolini.
Rather than reiterate the opposing arguments, reference is made to the
Briefs and the Answer for the respective positions of Appellant and the
Examiner. Only those arguments actually made by Appellant have been
considered in this decision. Arguments which Appellant could have made
but chose not to make in the Brief have not been considered (37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)).
We affirm.
ISSUE
The issue is whether Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Appellant’s arguments focus
on the claimed limitation related to the electric field generating means
disposed along opposing lateral sides of the channel (Br. 5-7). Specifically,
the issue is:
whether the electrodes on the upper surface of the dividing
walls of the channels in Tyler are the same as the claimed
subject matter including the electrodes disposed along lateral
sides of the channel.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Appellant’s claim 15 requires a channel which is uniformly crossing
the surface of the bottom portion of a backlight assembly to be disposed
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013