Appeal 2007-1351
Application 10/628,942
are not separately argued, fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)
(vii). We do not sustain the rejection of claim 22 because, as Appellant
notes, the claim depends from claim 20, rejected over the combination of
Stern and Adachi.
In the rejection of claims 2, 4, 8, 9, 12, 16-18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Stern and Adachi, the Examiner finds that
Stern does not disclose a transparent electrode or that light is transmitted
through a transparent electrode. The rejection turns to Adachi, which
discloses at column 3 a transparent electrode and guiding visible light to the
outside of an image display apparatus through the transparent electrode.
(Answer 5-6.)
We are in substantial agreement with Appellant’s arguments in the
briefs in response to the rejection over Stern and Adachi. The embodiments
described by Stern appear limited to using electrodes that are laterally offset
with respect to light transmitting from the display apparatus; e.g., Figure 4A,
electrodes 44, 47. The Examiner has not identified any plausible reason
from the prior art as to why the artisan would have used transparent
electrodes in any of the structures described by Stern. We thus do not
sustain the rejection of claims 2, 4, 8, 9, 12, 16-18, and 20.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the rejection of claims 19 and 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Stern is affirmed with respect to claim 19
but reversed with respect to claim 21. The rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 10, 11,
13-15, and 22 under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as unpatentable over Stern is
affirmed with respect to claims 1, 3, 5, 10, 11, and 13-15 but reversed with
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013