Appeal No. 1998-2570
Application No. 08/381,156
of complying with the burden of presenting a prima facie case
of
obviousness. Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24
USPQ2d
1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
With respect to independent claim 13, the Examiner
proposes to modify the video display system disclosure of
Nathanson. According to the Examiner (Answer, page 4),
Nathanson discloses the claimed invention except for the
feature of utilizing magnetic fields or piezoelectric material
for resetting any movable mirror display elements which may
have become stuck. To address this deficiency, the Examiner
turns to the Schell reference which describes the use of
magnetostrictive and piezoelectric actuators to change the
configuration of deformable mirror faceplates. In the
Examiner’s line of reasoning, the skilled artisan would have
been motivated and found it obvious to have modified
Nathanson’s device with the deformable mirror configuration
teachings of Schell “...because using magnetic field and
piezoelectric material is one of the way [sic, ways] to
control the deflection of the mirrors.” (Answer, page 4).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007