Appeal No. 96-1465
Application No. 08/115,299
electrical components with a metallic plate to prevent heat
interference between the circuits. The examiner asserts that
it would have been obvious to the artisan to separate the
printed circuit board and display device of Fukuda with a
metallic plate as taught by Lehmann. Appellant argues that
Lehmann is directed to high heat producing components and
would not prove helpful in Fukuda’s liquid crystal display
device. We agree with appellant. We can find no motivation
for the artisan to apply Lehmann’s high heat dissipation
techniques to Fukuda’s liquid crystal display assembly. The
only basis for applying Lehmann’s teachings to the Fukuda
device comes from an improper attempt to reconstruct the
invention in hindsight.
In conclusion, the record in this case does not
support a rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on
the teachings of Fukuda, Momose and Lehmann, taken singly or
in any combination.
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-5 and
19-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and the decision of the examiner
rejecting these claims is reversed.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007