Appeal No. 97-2020
Application 07/957,107
obviousness, the court must answer whether one of ordinary
skill in the art who sets out to solve the problem and who had
before him in his workshop the prior art, would have been
reasonably expected to use the solution that is claimed by the
Appellants.
As we had shown above, De Jule is not concerned with
the problem of active elements at each pixel. We find that it
would not be reasonable to expect the solution of using a
combination of pulse width and amplitude modulation as taught
by De Jule to solve a problem in a different display device
using completely different circuitry. Furthermore, we fail to
find that there is any suggestion of the desirability of using
the combination of pulse width and amplitude modulation in an
active
display device. Thus, we are only left with the Examiner's
implied argument that it would be obvious to try. However,
obvious to try is not the standard that we must use to
determine obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The use of the
obvious to try test ignores problem recognition as an element
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007