Appeal No. 2005-1997 Page 10
Application No. 09/493,319
Here, Nishida "relates to a display device. . . ." Col. 1, l. 4. As admitted by the
appellant, "[i]n lines 43-60 in column 13 of Nishida, Nishida states that a particular
display unit may include several pixels that share the same . . . memory." (Appeal Br. at
8.) Furthermore, the reference recognizes that when the "structure of a display device
becomes complicated," col. 1, ll. 64-65, it "need[s] much labor for its manufacture and
maintenance. This results in higher manufacturing costs and maintenance costs." Id. at
ll. 64-68.
We agree with the examiner that those skilled in the art would have known that
sharing a single memory among a group of pixels, rather than dedicating a separate
memory to each pixel, would have reduced the total number of memories. We also
agree that those so skilled would also have known that reducing the total number of
memories, would have reduced the space required by the memories. Reducing the
number of memories and the space required therefor, moreover, is consistent with
Nishida's goal of reducing complexity.
"[A]rgument of counsel cannot take the place of evidence." In re Budnick, 537
F.2d 535, 538, 190 USPQ 422, 424 (CCPA 1976) (citing In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600,
145 USPQ 716 (CCPA 1965); In re Cole, 326 F.2d 769, 140 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1964)).
Here, the appellant offers no evidence that sharing a single memory among a group of
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007