Ex parte HOFFMAN et al. - Page 9

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

          appeal.  Only Hilsum discusses decay rate, and there would                  
          have been no need in Hilsum to prevent interference or                      
          overlapping of display elements since Hilsum does not pertain               
          to scrolling.  As discussed earlier, Tsunoda concerns blanking              
          during scrolling to prevent interference and Hilsum pertains                
          to the opposing problem of refreshing by sustaining an image,               
          not blanking it.  One of ordinary skill in the art concerned                
          with scrolling would not look to Hilsum to solve the problem                
          of interference since Hilsum pertains to refreshing or                      
          sustaining display elements, and therefore teaches away.                    
          Because we find that the examiner has not properly made a                   
          prima facie case of obviousness, we will reverse the decision               
          of the examiner rejecting claims 1, 6 to 9, 11, 12, 15, 18,                 
          20, and 21 under 35 U.S.C.  103.                                           
               In light of the foregoing, the differences between the                 
          subject matter recited in the claims and the references are                 
          such that the claimed subject matter as a whole would not have              

          obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C.  103.  Accordingly,                

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

Last modified: November 3, 2007