Appeal 2007-1283
Application 09/772,477
has combined Wani’s interlaced subfield (corresponding to the least
significant four bits, col. 3, ll. 49-54) with Kida’s teaching of scanning two
rows simultaneously that are further shifted by one row in successive fields
(See Kida, col. 2, ll. 34-39 and 60-67; see also col. 6, l. 64 through col. 7, l.
17).
Regarding Appellants argument that Kida makes no distinction
between subfields having less significant bits, we note that the Examiner has
relied on Wani for this teaching (See Wani, col. 3, ll. 49-54). The
Examiner’s rejection is directed to the combination of Wani and Kida. The
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has determined that one cannot
show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the
rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., Inc.,
800 F.2d 1091, 1097, 231 USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, we agree
with Appellants that Kida makes no distinction between subfields having
less significant bits. However, Kida must be read, not in isolation, but for
what it fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as a whole. We find
Kida teaches scanning two rows simultaneously and shifting the rows
scanned by one row in a first field and a second field (See Kida, col. 2, ll.
34-39 and 60-67; see also col. 6, l. 64 through col. 7, l. 17). We find Wani
explicitly teaches displaying subfields corresponding to the least significant
four bits using interlace scanning (col. 3, ll. 49-54). Thus, we agree with the
Examiner that the combination of Wani and Kida teaches and/or suggests the
instant invention of claim 1.
Regarding Appellants’ argument that the methods of Wani and Kida
result in a loss of display resolution, we find some loss of display resolution
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013