Appeal No. 1998-0942
Application No. 08/324,038
the value claimed by appellants but unless the prior art
suggests some reason to do so, the examiner’s reasoning
appears to be based on hindsight gained from appellants’ own
disclosure. This is not the proper test for obviousness.
As appellants explain, at page 12 of the brief, the
current in Nishizawa is varied in accordance with the ambient
light so that it would appear that a very high current would
be needed in sunlight in order to produce sufficient luminance
to perceive the display. However, the instant claimed
invention uses the same amount of current to produce the same
amount of luminance [less than approximately 15 fL] in various
environments (sunlight or darkness). Thus, appellants appear
to have a specific reason for choosing the particular values
set forth in the instant claims and the examiner has pointed
to nothing which would have suggested the particular values of
luminance claimed.
The examiner also relies on Sniff for an alleged teaching
that a virtual display could be viewed in indoor and outdoor
environments with a dark background. Sniff is directed to a
simple EXIT sign, or, more generally, to a conversion kit for
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007