Appeal 2007-1283
Application 09/772,477
does not preclude other motivations for combining Wani and Kida, such as
the motivation of achieving maximum display brightness even with some
loss of resolution. We further note that Wani is directed to the same
problem addressed by Appellants’ invention, i.e., how to shorten the
addressing time so the sustain time can be extended to obtain an increase in
display brightness (See Wani, col. 4, ll. 1-11).
With respect to the issue of hindsight, in KSR the U.S. Supreme Court
reaffirmed that “[a] factfinder should be aware, of course, of the distortion
caused by hindsight bias and must be cautious of arguments reliant upon ex
post reasoning.” KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1742, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. See also
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. at 36, 148 USPQ at 474. Nevertheless,
in KSR the Supreme Court also qualified the issue of hindsight by stating
that “[r]igid preventative rules that deny factfinders recourse to common
sense, however, are neither necessary under our case law nor consistent with
it.” KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1742-43, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
In KSR, the Supreme Court further stated:
When a work is available in one field of endeavor,
design incentives and other market forces can
prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a
different one. If a person of ordinary skill can
implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely
bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a
technique has been used to improve one device,
and a person of ordinary skill in the art would
recognize that it would improve similar devices in
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013