Appeal No. 96-3564
Application 08/274,133
effect of a hindsight syndrome wherein that which only the inventor taught is used against
its teacher." W. L. Gore & Assoc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553, 220 USPQ
303, 312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the Examiner. Upon evaluation of all
the evidence before us, it is our conclusion that the evidence adduced by the examiner is
not sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to claim 26.
Each of claims 10, 17, 26, 30 and 33 contain the same basic limitation concerning the
relationship of the three luminance levels with the highest level as the background, the
concurrent display and the increase and decreasing contrast. Accordingly, we will not
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 10, 17, 26, 30 and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Since all the limitations of independent claims 10, 17, 26, 30 and 33 are not
suggested by the applied prior art, we cannot sustain the examiner's rejection of appealed
claims 11-16, 18-26, 27-29 and 31-32 which depends therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 10-33 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is reversed. The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007