Appeal No. 1998-0750
Application 08/232,135
first pixel and compensating of current dissipation in a second
pixel in Kanayama as modified by the examiner would have been
performed in a dynamic manner because the modified Kanayama would
have operated in essentially the same way as appellants’
apparatus.
We are not persuaded by appellants’ argument with respect to
independent claim 1, or claim 6, which depends from claim 4.
Accordingly, we will sustain their rejection as obvious over
Kanayama and Kumar. The position that Kanayama is not prior art
to the present invention because Kanayama pertains only to
displays using LEDs and the driver circuitry used for driving LEDs
is different than that used for driving field emission devices is
not convincing. The apparatus of Kanayama, like that of
appellants, relates to light-emitting display panels which utilize
diodes as light sources. Thus, although Kanayama does not
disclose a diode cold cathode display, it is analogous art.
Section 103 requires us to presume that the artisan has full
knowledge of the prior art in his field of endeavor
and the ability to select and utilize knowledge from analogous
arts. In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 442, 230 USPQ 313, 315 (Fed.
Cir. 1986). The suggestion to combine the prior art need not be
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007