Appeal No. 96-1462
Application 08/025,189
Peterson that could be applied to a compact vehicle mounted
system such as disclosed by Mercedes-Benz.
Although the examiner has stated that Mercedes-Benz and
Peterson are from analogous arts, this fact cannot, by itself,
justify this rejection. Two references which are from analogous
arts cannot be combined simply because they come from analogous
arts. There must still be some teaching or suggestion in the
prior art which would have led the artisan to combine the
teachings. There is nothing in Mercedes-Benz or Peterson which
would have led the artisan to make the modifications proposed by
the examiner. The examiner’s modifications come from a hindsight
attempt to reconstruct appellants’ invention.
With respect to appellants’ first point noted above, the
projection display aspects of the appealed claims are not met by
the LCD panel of Mercedes-Benz and cannot be met by the CRT
display of Peterson for reasons discussed above. Since this
rejection is based on obviousness rather than anticipation, we
must still consider the obviousness of replacing the LCD display
of Mercedes-Benz with a projection television display having the
claimed features. The examiner only marginally addresses the
issue of modifying Mercedes-Benz to change the type of television
display.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007