Ex parte HOFFMAN et al. - Page 5

          Appeal No. 1997-0384                                                        
          Application 08/086,498                                                      

          examiner, reference is made to the Brief and the Answer for                 
          the respective details thereof.                                             
               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                     

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007