Appeal No. 2006-1726
Application No. 09/725,849
Takahashi teaches the claimed limitation of applying a first
signal for charging the liquid pixels during the beginning of a
frame, and a second signal for discharging the liquid crystal
pixels during the ending of the same frame.
Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 11-14 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
II. Under 35 USC 103, is the Rejection of Claims 2, 3, 6
and 7 as Being Unpatentable over the combination of Takahashi and
Miwa Proper?
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner
bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443,
1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468,
1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The Examiner can
satisfy this burden by showing that some objective teaching in
the prior art or knowledge generally available to one of ordinary
skill in the art suggests the claimed subject matter. In re
Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Only if this initial burden is met does the burden of coming
forward with evidence or argument shift to the Appellants.
Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at 1444. See also Piasecki,
745 F.2d at 1472, 223 USPQ at 788.
An obviousness analysis commences with a review and
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007