Appeal No. 2003-1776
Application No. 09/383,923
Appellants argue that the examiner has relied upon hindsight to arrive at the
determination of obviousness. (See brief at page 13.) We agree with appellants that
the examiner has not adequately set forth a convincing line of reasoning for one skilled
in the relevant art of liquid crystal display design to combine the teachings of Maekawa
and Ono as set forth by the examiner in the answer. Appellants have set forth various
analyses of the teachings of Maekawa and Ono and set forth rationales as to why it
would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings
of the two references to achieve the invention as recited in independent claim 1. (See
brief at pages 11- 14 and reply at pages 1-5.) Appellants mainly contend that the
circuitry in Maekawa and Ono are different and that the waveform driving technique of
Ono that the examiner relies upon to teach a driving technique using the “exact same
circuitry arrangement as has been claimed” (answer at page 13) would not work since
the circuits are different and it not would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to drive the different circuit of Maekawa in the manner that Ono suggests. We
agree with appellants and do not find that the examiner has adequately established the
requisite motivation for combination of teachings. The examiner contends that the
rejection does not rely upon the transistors of Ono and Maekawa being “compatible”,
but merely that the transistors are “comparable”. (See answer at page 13.) We do not
understand the examiner’s logic with respect to the transistors being “comparable.” We
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007