Appeal No. 96-1462
Application 08/025,189
On the first point as already noted, we find no basis for
the artisan to use the teachings of Peterson to modify the system
of Mercedes-Benz. They simply have nothing to do with each
other. On the second point, the examiner’s bald conclusion that
it would have been obvious to substitute one form of television
for another is unsupported by this record. Although this is a
legitimate point to consider in resolving the obviousness of the
claimed invention, this record is devoid of any teachings which
would support this position. The examiner has not cited any
reference which shows a projection television system of the type
required by the appealed claims. Appellants have argued that
although LCDs and CRTs have been used in vehicles, projection
displays in a mountable housing have not been used in a vehicle.
Just because there may be some environments where substituting
one form of display for another might be obvious does not serve
to make the substitution obvious in all cases. As noted above,
this record does not support the examiner’s position that it
would have been obvious to replace the Mercedes-Benz LCD with a
projection television display.
For all the reasons just discussed, we do not sustain the
rejection of claims 1-8, 10-20, 22-25, 27-31, 33, 34, 42, 43 and
47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Although claims 9, 21, 26, 32, 35-41
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007