Appeal No. 1999-0541
Application No. 08/599,436
1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The court further reasons in Karsten Mfg.
Corp. v. Cleveland Gulf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1385, 58 USPQ2d 1286,
1293 (Fed. Cir. 2001) that for an invention to be obvious in view
of a combination of references, there must be some suggestion,
motivation, or teaching in the prior art that would have led a
person of ordinary skill in the art to select the references and
combine them in the way that would produce the claimed invention.
Therefore, we remain unpersuaded by the Examiner’s arguments
that one of ordinary skill in the art would have incorporated
Kobale’s conductive black matrix in the display of Brodie in any
way other than over the substrate before the conductive layer.
In that regard, while the basic elements of a field emission
display and a contrasting border layer are taught by Brodie and
Kobale respectively, the combination of prior art fails to teach
or suggest phosphors and a black matrix formed on the conductive
layer, as recited in claim 13. Accordingly, we do not sustain
the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of independent claim 13, as well as
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007