Appeal No. 2002-0328
Application No. 09/250,324
and Wakitani relates to the recitation of adjusting the
brightness of the pixels, the Examiner has provided a reasonable
motivation for combining the references wherein each add an
improvement to a display device. The motivation, suggestion or
teaching may come explicitly from statements in the prior art,
the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some
cases the nature of the problem to be solved. See In re
Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999, 50 USPQ2d 1614, 1617 (Fed. Cir.
1999).
In view of the analysis above, we find the Examiner’s
reliance on the combination of Wei, Spindt, Mazurek and Wakitani
to be reasonable and sufficient to establish a prima facie case
of obviousness. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claim 10, as well as claims 14, 16, 17, 20 and 21 which fall
together with claim 10, over Wei, Spindt, Mazurek and Wakitani is
sustained.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 11-
13 and 15, Appellants repeat the arguments made with regard to
claim 10 and add that Wakitani does not disclose a display device
that may be implemented as individual tiles (brief, page 25). We
find ourselves in disagreement with Appellants since the Examiner
relies on Wakitani for pixel brightness control (answer, page 8)
which merely suggests using such control in each tile in
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007