Appeal No. 1997-2291
Application No. 08/422,667
that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to provide Van Gorkum with a second selection plate as
taught by Chang “so as to modulate the level of the picture
element.”
Appellants argue (Brief, page 7) that:
The ‘750 Van Gorkom [sic, Van Gorkum] patentis
not prior art with respect to the present
application. The present application is a
continuation-in-part of U.S. Patent Application
830,951 filed on 6 February 1992 (now U.S. Patent
5,313,136), which is a continuation of U.S. Patent
Application 528,677 filed on 24 May 1990. The
latter date (which is earlier than the 5 December
1990 publication date of the ‘750 European Patent
cited by the Examiner) is effectively the filing
date of the present application with respect to
anything that is commonly disclosed in both the
present application and its CIP parent, i.e. the
‘136 U.S. Patent. By comparison, it can be seen
that the disclosures (including the drawing figures)
in the ‘136 parent and the ‘750 European Patent
cited by the Examiner are substantially identical.
Thus, to the extent that the ‘750 European Patent
discloses any material which is common to that
disclosed and claimed in the present application, it
is not prior art, because it is also disclosed in
the parent of the present application.
A comparison of the drawing figures and disclosure of the
‘750 European Patent Application to the drawing figures and
disclosure of the ‘136 U.S. Patent reveals that they are
“substantially identical.” Thus, we agree with appellants’
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007