Appeal No. 1997-0189
Application No. 07/983,118
1051, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S.
825
(1988); Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories,
Inc.,
776 F.2d 281, 293, 227 USPQ 657, 664 (Fed. Cir. 1985), cert.
denied, 475 U.S. 1017 (1986); ACS Hosp. Sys., Inc. v.
Montefiore Hosp., 732 F.2d 1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed.
Cir. 1984). These showings by the Examiner are an essential
part
of complying with the burden of presenting a prima facie case
of
obviousness. Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24
USPQ2d
1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
With respect to claims 34, 39, and 51 (all of the
independent claims on appeal), the Examiner, as the basis for
the obviousness rejection, seeks to modify the color display
device of Suntola by relying on Mourey to supply the missing
teaching of providing an offset between adjacent windows in
the column of windows of the light gate array. In the
Examiner’s view, the skilled artisan would have found it
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007