Appeal 2007-1430
Application 10/407,696
25 micrometers (which overlaps the claimed range of less than 12
micrometers). Furthermore, since the Clancy teaches that the traces are
opaque and the combined teachings of Clancy and Binstead suggest that the
width of the traces should be selected so as not to interfere with the
underlying image and so as to be invisible to the naked eye, it would have
been obvious to the skilled artisan to make the width of the traces smaller
than the width of a pixel. Otherwise, the trace would significantly obstruct
the image from the underlying pixel. Accordingly, claims 6, 8, 30, 32, 49,
and 51 would have been obvious over Clancy in view of Binstead.
ORDER
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1 through 5, 7 through
13, 15 through 24, 26 through 28, 31 through 46, and 50 through 52 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed as to claims 8, 32, and 51 but affirmed as to
the rest. Also, the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 6, 14, 25, 29,
30, and 47 through 49 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed as to claims 6, 30,
and 49 but affirmed as to claims 14, 25, 29, 47, and 48. In addition, we enter
a new ground of rejection of claims 6, 8, 30, 32, 49, and 51 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 over Clancy in view of Binstead.
Regarding the affirmed rejection(s), 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(1) provides
"Appellant may file a single request for rehearing within two months from
the date of the original decision of the Board."
In addition to affirming the Examiner's rejection(s) of one or more
claims, this decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) (effective September 13, 2004, 69 Fed. Reg. 49960
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013