Appeal No. 1997-0384
Application 08/086,498
appeal. Only Hilsum discusses decay rate, and there would
have been no need in Hilsum to prevent interference or
overlapping of display elements since Hilsum does not pertain
to scrolling. As discussed earlier, Tsunoda concerns blanking
during scrolling to prevent interference and Hilsum pertains
to the opposing problem of refreshing by sustaining an image,
not blanking it. One of ordinary skill in the art concerned
with scrolling would not look to Hilsum to solve the problem
of interference since Hilsum pertains to refreshing or
sustaining display elements, and therefore teaches away.
Because we find that the examiner has not properly made a
prima facie case of obviousness, we will reverse the decision
of the examiner rejecting claims 1, 6 to 9, 11, 12, 15, 18,
20, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In light of the foregoing, the differences between the
subject matter recited in the claims and the references are
such that the claimed subject matter as a whole would not have
been
obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly,
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007