Appeal No. 96-1462
Application 08/025,189
of complying with the burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d
1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
We consider first the rejection of claims 1-8, 10-20, 22-
25, 27-31, 33, 34, 42, 43 and 47 as unpatentable over the
teachings of Mercedes-Benz and Peterson. Appellants again argue
that the projection display recitations are not taught by either
Mercedes-Benz or Peterson, and that there would be no basis for
the artisan to combine the teachings of Peterson with those of
Mercedes-Benz [brief, pages 10-13]. The examiner responds that
Mercedes-Benz meets the claim language as discussed above and
asserts that it would have been obvious to substitute for the LCD
display of Mercedes-Benz with the CRT display of Peterson
[answer, pages 6-9].
Considering the latter point raised by appellants first,
we agree with appellants that the artisan would not have
considered combining the teachings of Peterson with Mercedes-Benz
to arrive at the claimed invention. The collapsible cart of
Peterson is addressed to such a different aspect of imaging than
Mercedes-Benz is that there would be no reason to seek to modify
Mercedes-Benz with the suggestions of Peterson. We are unable to
accept that the artisan would find any useful teachings in
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007