Appeal No. 1998-0495
Application No. 08/324,540
35 U.S.C. § 103 is what would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art, and the level of the skilled
artisan should not be underestimated. See In re Sovish, 769
F.2d 738, 743, 226 USPQ 771, 774 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Appellant further contends (Brief, page 15) that Yokoi
merely teaches using a liquid crystal, and not PDLC, for a
projection device, and therefore is irrelevant to the claimed
invention. However, Yokoi (column 1, lines 24-35) discusses
the problem of decreased light transmission in projectors
which use twisted nematic liquid crystal with two polarizers.
As explained above, Doane teaches that PDLC should be used to
eliminate the need for polarizers and thus brighten the
display. In other words, the combined teachings of Yokoi and
Doane would suggest to one skilled in the art that PDLC is
ideal for use in a projector such as Yokoi's. Accordingly, we
will sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 42 over Lloyd,
Doane, and Yokoi.
The examiner rejects claim 43 over Lloyd, Doane, and
Yokoi, as applied to claim 42, and further in view of
Yamazaki, although the only limitation in claim 43 that is not
present in claim 42 is the description of how the PDLC
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007