Appeal No. 1998-1521
Application No. 08/584,990
known type of display unit, such as a laser printer, may be
used in the Femal system.
For their part, appellants contend that the artisan
familiar with Femal's disclosure would not have been led to
equate the image display device 15 with a high performance
hyperacuity laser printer. Appellants contend that there is
no suggestion in Femal of the use of an alternative display
device and no reference to the use of lasers for directing
light spots against a photoreceptive surface. Accordingly, in
appellants' view, the examiner has failed to make out a prima
facie case of obviousness.
We reverse.
While appellants' argument appears weak to us in that
they never explain why it would not have been obvious to
substitute one type of display (laser printer) for another
(CRT), contending only that there is no suggestion for making
the substitution, we will, nevertheless, reverse the
examiner's rejection.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007