Appeal No. 1998-0693
Application No. 08/387,583
35 U.S.C. § 103
We note that the examiner has expressly stated in the letter mailed Oct. 23, 2000
that the rejection is based solely upon the teachings of the APA in view of the Nicholson
patent. Therefore, in our decision, we have not considered the teachings of O’Farrell,
Yaguchi et al., Yaguchi or Hashimoto discussed and cited in the answer.
The examiner maintains that “the [claimed] invention is basically the admitted prior
art (i.e., applying a contrasting display to a rearview mirror) with the additional concept of
applying different electric fields across the segments of the display and the background
area, and making the display variable.” (answer, page 4). The examiner relies upon the
teaching of Nicholson to teach the use of different potentials and for use of a variable
display. We agree with the examiner that Nicholson teaches a variable display and use of
different potentials, but the use of the different potentials is to select the variable colors of
the background and the display segments (see Nicholson at columns 11-13.)
Appellant argues that the admitted prior art is “nothing more than the isolation of
part of an electro-optic mirror behind which a conventional display is positioned." (See
brief at page 7.) We agree with appellant that, from the discussion at pages 1-2 of the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007