Appeal No. 1997-1131
Application No. 08/395,119
In view of the above discussion, since all of the claimed
limitations are not disclosed by Bailey, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 1 through 18.
Turning to a consideration of the obviousness rejection of
claims 19 and 20 based on Bailey, we do not sustain this
rejection as well. At page 3 of the Answer, the Examiner sets
forth the rejection as follows:
... it would thus have been obvious at the
time the invention was made to adapt aaa [sic]
to include arranging the digits as claimed or
using a computer or watch to generate the
desired visual images using the LEDS or a
Lcd screen.
As with the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection discussed supra, the
Examiner has provided no support on the record to support such a
conclusion. Even assuming arguendo that the LED matrix array of
elements in Bailey could be illuminated to provide a particular
display design as desired, there is no evidence to indicate that
the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to produce the
specific display arrangement recited in the appealed claims. The
mere fact that the prior art may be modified in the manner
suggested by the Examiner does not make the modification obvious
unless the prior art suggested the desirability of the
modification. In re Fritch, 972 F. 2d 1260, 23 USPQ2d 1780 (Fed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007