Appeal No. 1998-0693
Application No. 08/387,583
incorporate a display formed integrally with a mirror rather than separate portions
incorporated together as taught in the APA. While the examiner maintains that it would be
obvious to associate a variable display with a mirror, (paper no. 6 at page 4), the examiner
has not provided a convincing line of reasoning why it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to form the two together on the same
conductive layer. Appellant argues that Nicholson does not contemplate a contrasting
display, but rather only a colored display. (See brief at page 10.) We agree with
appellant.
The examiner maintains that appellant’s arguments are not persuasive because
the arguments are a combination of the APA and Nicholson and that “the Nicholson
reference provides obvious motivation for modifying the admitted prior art electro-optic
devices.” (See answer at page 5.) We disagree with the examiner. Further, the examiner
maintains at page 5 that appellant’s argument that the skilled artisan would not be
motivated to combine the color display of Nicholson with the mirror of the APA and that the
color would be distracting, is not persuasive because it is merely appellant’s opinion. The
examiner further states the “nowhere does the rejection state that one skilled in the art
would use Nicholson’s teachings to add a color display to the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007