Appeal 2007-0563
Application 10/001,940
1 Montgomery US 5,696,533 Dec. 9, 1997
2 Iwamura US 5,945,976 Aug. 31, 1999
3
4 Claims 1-38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
5 unpatentable over Iwamura in view of Montgomery (Final Rejection 3 and
6 Answer 3).
7 B. Issue
8 There are two issues before us as follows:
9 1) The first issue is has the Examiner failed to sufficiently
10 demonstrate that either Iwamura or Montgomery teaches “a color value
11 stored for each pixel in the display device” or “stored a respective color
12 value for each pixel in the display device” as required by claims 1-10 or
13 claim 37 respectfully?
14 2) For all other independent claims (and those claims that depend on
15 the other independent claims), has the Examiner failed to sufficiently
16 demonstrate that there is a legal basis for combining Iwamura and
17 Montgomery?
18 For the reasons that follow, the Examiner has failed to sufficiently
19 demonstrate that there is a legal basis for rejecting claim 1 (also dependent
20 claims 2-10) and claim 37 based on the combination of Iwamura and
21 Montgomery, but has sufficiently demonstrated that there is a legal basis for
22 combining Iwamura and Montgomery for all other involved claims.
is Critical Reach, Inc.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013