Appeal No. 1999-1687 Page 10
Application No. 08/152,102
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, 773 F.2d 900, 902,
221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984). "Obviousness may not be
established using hindsight or in view of the teachings or
suggestions of the inventor." Para-Ordnance Mfg. v. SGS
Importers Int’l, 73 F.3d 1087, 37 USPQ 2d at 1239 (Fed. Cir.
1995), citing W. L. Gore & Assocs., v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d
at 1551, 1553, 220 USPQ at 311, 312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Because Scheib is concerned with flexing a lighting strip
to create an image, and Mizushima and Havel are concerned with
creating images by individually controlling the intensity and
color of LEDS in a color picture display panel, we find no
suggestion to combine the teachings of the references to
arrive at a M x N matrix color display panel that is flexible
and is periodically thinned so as to be capable of being
rolled. We agree with the examiner that both a flexible
circuit board and a hard circuit board support the display
elements and their wiring. However, we agree with appellants
that the flexible substrate of Scheib is for creating the
image displayed by the LEDs, and that Havel does not make up
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007