Appeal No. 2005-0116
Application No. 10/109,390
establish a genuine issue of material fact." Dembiczak, 175 F.3d at 999, 50 USPQ2d
at 1617, citing McElmurry v. Arkansas Power & Light Co., 995 F.2d 1576, 1578, 27
USPQ2d 1129, 1131 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The examiner relies upon the teachings of Merrill to teach the additional limitation
in claim 3 with respect to the use of a buffer at the output of the circuit. The examiner
relies upon the teachings of Gowda to teach the additional limitation in claims 4 and 5
with respect to the use of the second reference signal a subsequent first reference
signal. Appellants do not contest the teachings of Merrill or Gowda, but maintain that
they do not remedy the deficiencies in Fossum as noted above. We agree with
appellants and find that the examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness of the claimed invention.
With respect to independent claim 6, the examiner relies upon the teachings of
Dhuse in combination with Booth, Jr. as evidence of obviousness of the detailed limita-
tions of independent claim 6. From our review of the teachings of Dhuse, we agree with
appellants’ (Brief at pages 6-7) that Dhuse is deficient with respect to the second black
reference signal branch and that the teachings of Booth, Jr. do not fairly suggest the use
of separate and distinct branch circuits for the same pixel and use thereof for black
reference signals to modify the pixel signal. Therefore, we find that the examiner has
not established a prima facie case of obviousness of the invention as recited in
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007