Appeal No. 1998-0662
Application No. 08/561,223
With respect to claims 7 and 18, Appellants rely on
previous arguments without specifically addressing the
applicability of Stoltz for the teaching of the SM being a
mirror device (brief-pages 8 and 9). Accordingly we will
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.
With respect to claims 9 and 15, Appellants argue that
the references do not teach the use of a memory element
associated with a pixel element (brief-pages 6, 7 and 8). We
agree with the Examiner that this is taught by Masumori’s
memory elements 11 , 11 ,...11 (answer-page 9). Thus we will1 2 S
sustain the Examiner’s rejection as to these claims.
It is the burden of the Examiner to establish why one
having ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the
claimed invention by the reasonable teachings or suggestions
found in the prior art, or by a reasonable inference to the
artisan contained in such teachings or suggestions. In re
Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 995, 217 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
In addition, the Federal Circuit states that "[t]he mere fact
that the prior art may be modified in the manner suggested by
the Examiner does not make the modification obvious unless the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007