Appeal No. 1998-0447
Application No. 08/477,893
Schroeder 4,266,164 May
05, 1981
Claims 1 through 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Rhodes in view of Evans and
Schroeder.
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 11,
mailed September 8, 1997) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejection, and to appellants'
Brief (Paper No. 10, filed June 11, 1997) for appellants'
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art references, and the respective positions articulated
by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1
through 6.
First we note that the examiner relies upon Schroeder for
a teaching of energizing electroluminescent segments in
sequence at a frequency sufficient to make the light output of
the entire display appear uniform. However, the subject
matter relied upon in Schroeder can be traced back to
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007