Appeal No. 1997-2150
Application No. 08/350,777
to the limitation of less than 15 fL. We agree. Appellants
have clearly shown that the luminance is not inherent to LEDs
per se but rather depends on the size and the amount of
current supplied thereto. Without any discussion in Wells as
to the amount of current and/or the luminance, we find no
suggestion to limit the amount of luminance to that which is
claimed.
As to the examiner's second reason for obviousness, the
examiner has not shown that the amount of light is a result
effective variable. The examiner has provided no evidence of
any relationship, and particularly an inverse relationship,
between the amount of light and another characteristic of the
LEDs, such that one would want to balance or optimize the two.
Therefore, In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA
1980) does not apply to the claimed limitation. Accordingly,
we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 1, 7, and 20.
For claims 2 through 4, 8 through 11, and 13, the
examiner adds Becker to the combination of Villa-Real and
Wells, contending that Becker teaches arranging the diodes to
produce an array of pixels in rows and columns. However, like
claim 1, independent claims 8 and 13 recite that the image
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007