Appeal No. 95-3890
Application 08/023,665
When these rules are considered under the facts of this
case, we agree with appellant that the proposed combination of
the teachings of Kuijk with the teachings of Piper would not
result in the claimed invention. The examiner has recognized
that Kuijk fails to suggest the half a pitch offset of pixels in
consecutive rows. The examiner also relies on Kuijk for the
mirror-symmetry relationship. However, when the Kuijk display
device is modified to include a half a pitch offset as suggested
by Piper, the Kuijk display device would no longer have the
symmetry with which it started. In other words, the modification
proposed by the examiner would destroy one of the features relied
on to support the rejection. Thus, neither reference teaches the
claimed display device which has both the property of half a
pitch offset and the simultaneous mirror-symmetry of the
components.
As pointed out by appellant, the straightforward
modification of the Kuijk display device with the Piper offset
would result in a display device which lacks the claimed
symmetry. Since the examiner has not addressed the question of
why it would have been obvious to the artisan to retain the
mirror-symmetry of Kuijk while offsetting the picture electrodes
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007