Appeal No. 2005-2004
Application 09/760,499
modifications he suggests based on the acknowledged similarity in the general structure of light-
emitting or display elements alone, see B.F. Goodrich Co. v. Aircraft Braking Sys. Corp., 72
F.3d 1577, 1582, 37 USPQ2d 1314, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“When obviousness is based on a
particular prior art reference, there must be a showing of a suggestion or motivation to modify
the teachings of that reference. [Citation omitted.] This suggestion or motivation need not be
expressly stated. [Citation omitted.]”), neither modification would result in the claimed methods
involving light-emitting elements encompassed by appealed claims 1, 4 and 36, and the claimed
methods involving EL display elements or liquid crystal display elements encompass by
appealed claim 26. Indeed, the mere substitution of one type of display element for another or
the omission of the formation of structure in this respect in the method of Yamazaki ‘138 does
not change the order of steps taught by the reference. See Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp.,
837 F.2d 1044, 1050-54, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438-41 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
The examiner’s decision is reversed.4
4 A discussion of Yamazaki ‘456 is not necessary to our decision. See In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347,
349, 21 USPQ2d 1941, 1942 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Kronig, 539 F.2d 1300, 1302-04, 190 USPQ
425, 426-28 (CCPA 1976).
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007