Appeal No. 97-2020
Application 07/957,107
invention." Para-Ordnance Mfg. v. SGS Importers Int'l, Inc.,
73 F.3d 1085, 1087, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995),
cert. denied, 117 S.Ct. 80 (1996) citing W. L. Gore & Assoc.,
Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1548, 220 USPQ 303, 309
(Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
"Obviousness may not be established using hindsight or in view
of the teachings or suggestions of the inventor." Para-
Ordnance Mfg., 73 F.3d at 1087, 37 USPQ2d at 1239, citing W.
L. Gore, 721 F.2d at 1551, 1553, 220 USPQ at 311, 312-313.
On page 6 of the brief, Appellants agree that De
Jule states at column 30, lines 5 through 13, that the
modulation used in De Jule's display may be amplitude
modulation, pulse width modulation, or a combination of both.
Appellants argue that there is no motivation based on De Jule
or the admitted prior art to combine the references in the
manner proposed by the Examiner. Appellants emphasize on page
7 of the brief that De Jule fails to provide a teaching or
motivation of using a combination of pulse
width and amplitude modulation in an active matrix display.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007