Appeal No. 1997-0384
Application 08/086,498
discussed, supra, Hilsum concerns the refresh of a display
element (3 in Figure 3) and not blanking such as used in
11
scrolling. Therefore, we find that there is no motivation to
combine these references since Hilsum (refreshing) teaches
away from Tsunoda (scrolling), and that to combine these two
references in order to achieve appellants’ claimed invention
would require the use of hindsight. Only appellants have
recognized the problem in displays which scroll information
that interference occurs between image frames (see
specification, pages 2 and 4). Neither Tsunoda nor Hilsum
discusses interference between display elements during a
scrolling operation.
We agree with appellants (Brief, page 4) that there would
have been no motivation to combine Tsunoda and Hilsum in order
to achieve appellants’ recited invention. We find that the
examiner’s motivation for making the combination in the
statement of the rejection (Answer, page 6) fails to provide
an explanation for why the ordinary artisan, looking at
Tsunoda and Hilsum, would have been motivated to blank for an
interval proportional to a screen decay rate to reduce
interference during scrolling as recited in the claims on
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007