Appeal No. 1997-1578
Application No. 08/212,292
Sebestyen coincides with that of Appellant, i.e. the scrolling
of a displayed message in Sebestyen is stopped after a single
display. The recirculating shift register 732 in Sebestyen
permits a message to be retained in memory for subsequent
recall by a user (Sebestyen, column 4, lines 36-50); however,
there is no teaching in Sebestyen of any continual re-display
of the displayed message absent any manual intervention by the
user. It is also apparent from the line of reasoning in the
Answer that since the Examiner has, in our view, mistakenly
interpreted the disclosure of Sebestyen as disclosing such
continual re-display feature, the issue of the obviousness of
this feature has not been addressed.
We further agree with Appellant’s argument (Brief, page 5)
that the Examiner has failed to provide proper motivation for
modifying Newell with the teachings of Sebestyen. It is our
view that, even assuming arguendo that the precessing display
feature in Sebestyen could be construed to teach continuous
message re-display, no motivation exists for modifying Newell
in the manner suggested by the Examiner. 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
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007