Appeal No. 96-1446
Application 08/103,174
would have led the artisan to construct an arrangement having
the claimed structural features. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331,
216 USPQ 1038 (Fed. Cir. 1983) and In re Kronig, 539 F.2d
1300, 190 USPQ 425 (CCPA 1976). The law of obviousness does
not require that references be combined for reasons
contemplated by an inventor, but only looks to whether the
motivation or suggestion to combine references is provided by
prior art taken as a whole. In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 24
USPQ2d 1040 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In an obviousness
determination, the prior art need not suggest solving the same
problem set forth by appellant. In re Dillion, 919 F.2d 688,
692-93, 16 USPQ2d 1897, 1901 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (in banc)
(overruling in part In re Wright, 848 F.3d 1216, 1220, 6
USPQ2d 1959, 1962 (Fed. Cir. 1988)), cert. denied, 500 U.S.
904 (1991).
The top of page 5 of the Brief indicates that appellant
regards Bly's teachings and showings that an active display
device A and a passive display device P are independently
controlled in synchronism with each other in such a manner as
to display images defined by picture elements. Independent
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007