Appeal No. 1999-2337
Application 08/655,257
step of “driving a planar display” in light of the Appellants’
specification. Therefore, for the same reasons as we have
shown above, we fail to find that Kuga meets this limitation.
Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 3, 4, 11, 12, 15, 16, 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claims 5 through 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Kuga in view of DeMond. Appellants
argue that the Examiner’s assertion that Kuga mentions using
mirror/reflecting devices to display the images in column 1,
lines 48 through 55 is an improper reason for combinability of
the references.
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
prior art suggested the desirability of the modification.” In
re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 n.14, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84
n.14 (Fed. Cir. 1992), citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902,
221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984). It is further
established that “[s]uch a suggestion may come from the nature
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007