Appeal No. 97-4083
Application 08/422,933
obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
suitably modify the Lawrence display device and support it on a wall as is known to be
conventional, thereby arriving at the subject matter recited in claims 16, 17, 19 and 20, in
order to expand the display range of the device. In this regard, a conclusion of
obviousness may be based on common knowledge and common sense of the person of
ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference. In
re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
In summary:
a) the decision of the examiner to reject claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, is affirmed;
b) the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1, 7 through 10 and 16 through 23
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed; and
c) new rejections of claims 1, 7 through 10, 16, 17, 19 and 20 are entered pursuant
to 37 CFR § 1.196(b).
In addition to affirming the examiner’s rejection of one or more claims, this decision
contains new grounds of rejection pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b)(amended effective Dec.
1, 1997, by final rule notice, 62 Fed. Reg. 53,131, 53,197 (Oct. 10, 1997), 1203 Off. Gaz.
Pat. & Trademark Office 63, 122 (Oct. 21, 1997)). 37 CFR § 1.196(b) provides, “A new
ground of rejection shall not be considered final for purposes of judicial review.”
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007