Appeal No. 96-1462
Application 08/025,189
In the rejection set forth in Paper #8, the examiner
makes the following observations:
While MERCEDES-BENZ employs a liquid
crystal television display, many other
types of displays including cathode ray
tube displays, gas-plasma displays,
three beam projector displays, etc. are
well known.
... it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of
the present invention to replace the
existing fold-down LCD panel with a CRT
projection assembly as shown by
PETERSON. Doing so would constitute an
obvious substitution of one well known
display technology for another. While
the television projection display of
PETERSON as shown in Figure 2 is
probably too large to mount to the roof
of a passenger car, one of ordinary
skill in the art would have no trouble
combining PETERSON’s teaching of a
retractable screen television display
with modern television miniaturization
techniques in order to produce a
retractable screen television display
small enough for mounting to the roof of
a passenger car.
Thus, the closest the examiner comes to addressing the issue of
the obviousness of substituting a projection display for the
Mercedes-Benz LCD display is to assert that the Peterson CRT is a
projection display or to suggest that substituting one display
for another would be an obvious thing to do.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007