Appeal No. 2005-1997 Page 9
Application No. 09/493,319
Here, Nakajima "relates to a liquid crystal display device. . . ." Col. 1, ll. 7-8.
More specifically, "[t]he liquid crystal display device 1 shown in FIG. 2 . . . comprises a
display area 3 comprising a number of pixels 2. . . ." Col. 2, ll. 52-55. As noted by the
appellant, "[t]his device includes memory and control circuitry (see Figure 1, for
example) for each pixel of the device." (Appeal Br. at 7.) More specifically, the
reference discloses that "not only the driving element and the storage capacitor, but
also an input register circuit 21, a memory 22, an operation circuit 23, an output register
circuit 24 and a digital-to-analog conversion circuit (hereinafter referred to as 'DAC
circuit') 25 are integrated on the element-formed layer 8 of each pixel as shown in
FIG. 1. . . ." Col. 3, ll. 11-17.
"The presence or absence of a motivation to combine references in an
obviousness determination is a pure question of fact." In re Gartside, 203 F3d 1305,
1316, 53 USPQ2d 1769, 1776 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (citing In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994,
1000, 50 USPQ2d 1614, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). A suggestion to combine teachings
from the prior art "may be found in explicit or implicit teachings within the references
themselves, from the ordinary knowledge of those skilled in the art, or from the nature of
the problem to be solved." WMS Gaming Inc. v. Int'l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1335,
51 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citing In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355, 47
USPQ2d 1453, 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1998)).
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007