Appeal No. 97-2020
Application 07/957,107
were engaged in, matrix displays, and is concerned with
methods of driving matrix displays. The admitted prior art is
evidence that appellants neither invented active matrix
displays nor the method of driving such displays with
modulated (amplitude) signals. De Jule is
evidence that it was known in the prior art to drive matrix
displays with a signal that was both amplitude and width
modulated.
One of ordinary skill in the art is presumed to have
full knowledge of the prior art in his field of endeavor and
the ability to select and utilize knowledge from analogous
arts. In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 442, 230 USPQ 313, 315
(Fed. Cir. 1986). A conclusion of obviousness may be made
from common knowledge and common sense of the person of
ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or
suggestion in a particular reference. In re Bosek, 416 F.2d
1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969). To properly
combine references, there must have been some teaching,
suggestion, or inference in the references, or knowledge
15
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007