Appeal 2007-1430
Application 10/407,696
the transparent material, we can infer that the conductive ink is opaque
rather than transparent, particularly in light of column 5, lines 26-29,
wherein Clancy refers to situations where the traces are not transparent.
Therefore, we will sustain the anticipation rejection of claims 12, 21, and 40.
For claims 8, 32, and 51, Appellant further contends (Br. 12) that
Clancy fails to disclose the claim limitation of the conductive trace width
being less than a pixel width. The issue is thus whether Clancy teaches a
width of the traces being less than the width of a pixel. Although Clancy
does teach that the width of the traces should be small relative to the image,
Clancy does not relate the width to the width of a pixel. Clancy fails to even
mention pixels. Consequently, we cannot sustain the anticipation rejection
of claims 8, 32, and 51. However, see the new ground of rejection, infra.
The Examiner (Answer 5) rejects claims 6, 30, and 49 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Clancy. The Examiner (Answer 5) asserts that
Clancy's teaching to size the array of traces leaving substantial room for
light to project through the array for adequate visualization suggests the
claimed trace width of less than 12 micrometers. Appellant contends (Br.
13) that Clancy fails to define "adequate visualization" and, therefore, fails
to suggest the claimed trace width. Hence, the issue is whether the claimed
range for the trace width would have been obvious from the teachings of
Clancy.
We find no teaching or suggestion in Clancy of any particular width
for the traces, just that the width should be sufficiently thin to allow the
underlying image to be seen. Without some guidance as to a specific width,
Clancy fails to render obvious the claimed width. Consequently, we cannot
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013