Appeal 2006-3013
Application 10/367,849
person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would
improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is
obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill. . . . [A]
court must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable
use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
Id. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. “One of the ways in which a patent’s
subject matter can be proved obvious is by noting that there existed at the
time of the invention a known problem for which there was an obvious
solution encompassed by the patent’s claims.” Id. at 1742, 82 USPQ2d at
1397.
ANALYSIS
We will address the third issue first as it is dispositive of our holding
to reverse the Examiner’s rejection. Independent claim 14 recites a display
apparatus which includes scanning, data and power lines, these lines connect
to a plurality of pixel circuits that contain a transistor and light emission
element. Claim 14 also recites that a portion of the power feed line, in the
display section, is wider than the data line in the display section.
Independent claim 31 recites similar limitations concerning the display, but
instead of reciting the relative width of the data and power lines, claim 31
recites that the “resistance value per unit length of the one power-feed line
being set to be smaller than that of the one data line.”
The Examiner has found that it is well-known that the resistance of a
power line can be reduced by increasing the width of the power line.
(Answer 4). The Examiner relies upon Kawaguchi for this teaching.
(Answer 4). We concur with the Appellants that the teachings of
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013