Appeal No. 2004-1543 Page 12
Application No. 09/303,991
In this case, while phase-locked loop circuitry is known, we fail to find any
motivation, suggestion or teaching in the applied prior art that would have made it
obvious at the time the invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in the art to
have modified Cox to use phase-locked loop circuitry as the pixel clock. Likewise, we
fail to find any motivation, suggestion or teaching in the applied prior art that would have
made it obvious at the time the invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in the
art to have obfuscated Cox's invention by maintaining the analog video outputs from the
CMOS image sensors in analog format along the entire signal path from the CMOS
image sensors to the display (i.e., by omitting the analog to digital conversion of the
video signals and all of the digital processing thereof).
In our view, the only suggestion for modifying Cox in the manner proposed by the
examiner to meet the above-noted limitations stems from hindsight knowledge derived
from the appellants' own disclosure. The use of such hindsight knowledge to support an
obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is, of course, impermissible. See, for
example, W. L. Gore and Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553, 220
USPQ 303, 312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claim
claims 7 to 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007