Appeal No. 1997-0384
Application 08/086,498
examiner, reference is made to the Brief and the Answer for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
It is our view that the prior art relied upon and the
level of skill in the particular art would not have suggested
to one of ordinary skill in the art the obviousness of the
invention as set forth in claims 1, 6 to 9, 11, 12, 15, 18,
20, and 21. In reaching our conclusion on the issues raised
in this appeal, we have carefully considered appellants’
specification and claims, the applied patents, and the
respective viewpoints of appellants and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we are in general agreement with
appellants (Brief, page 4) that the claims on appeal would not
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time the invention was made in light of the collective
teachings of Tsunoda and Hilsum. For the reasons which
follow, we will not sustain the decision of the examiner
rejecting claims 1, 6 to 9, 11, 12, 15, 18, 20, and 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
The examiner relies upon Tsunoda as showing all of the
recited features of representative claim 1 of a display
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007