Appeal No. 96-1729
Application No. 08/165,795
one of the aforementioned dot techniques. Tai does
not turn on or turn off pixels in the manner taught
by Appellant. It is submitted that there is nothing
in Tai which would motivate one of ordinary skill in
the art to select a template with alternating pixels
instead of alternating regions. It is further
submitted that there is nothing which would suggest
to one of ordinary skill in the art that Tai should
be combined with Roetling. (reply brief, page 6)
If we assume for the sake of argument that the teachings
of Roetling and Tai would have been combinable within 35
U.S.C.
§ 103, the above noted provision of each independent claims 1,
4 and 9 on appeal that we quoted earlier at a minimum would
not have been taught or suggested in any manner. As such, we
do not agree with the examiner’s view that Tai teaches the
examiner’s admitted deficiencies in Roetling with respect to
each of these independent claims of dividing a cell into two
equal groups of alternating pixels as recited in the earlier
quoted clause. In this sense then as well, there is
essentially no prima facie case of obviousness that the
applied prior art would have been established to lead us to
conclude the subject matter of independent claims 1, 4 and 9
would have been obvious to the artisan. As such, we further
reverse the rejection of the respective dependent claims of
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007