Appeal No. 1998-1320
Application No. 08/305,643
teaching of a single 7, 8 segment LED display, suggesting that
one of ordinary skill would recognize the cost savings of a
single as opposed to plural segmented digital displays. To
bolster his position, the Examiner cites In re Karlson, 311
F.2d 581, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963), which the Examiner asserts
(Answer, page 5) stands for the principle that omission of an
element and its function in a combination where the remaining
elements perform the same functions involves only routine
skill in the art.
In response, Appellant’s arguments (Brief, page 7)
primarily focus on the contention that the teachings of the
Digi-Key reference are insufficient to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness for modifying the plural displays of
either the admitted prior art system or Null to meet the
claimed requirement of a single 7, 8 segment LED display, a
feature in each of the independent claims. Upon careful
review of the applied prior art in light of the arguments of
record, we are in agreement with Appellant’s position as
stated in the Briefs. Our interpretation of the disclosure of
Digi-Key coincides with that of Appellant, i.e., this
reference teaches nothing more than that single digit displays
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007