Appeal 2006-3013
Application 10/367,849
power lines. Appellant’s Figure, 22, p. 3 of Appellant’s originally
filed Specification.
13. Each pixel circuit in the display shown in Appellant’s admitted prior
art contains two transistors (20 and 30) and one light emission
element (item 40). The gate electrode of one of the transistors (30) is
at a potential corresponding to the signal supplied on the data line.
Appellant’s Figure 22.
14. The load on the sig line (data line) is the capacitor and transistor (20),
where as the load on the common (power line) is the capacitor,
transistors (20 &30), and the light emitting element (40). Appellant’s
Figure 22.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
On the issue of obviousness, the Supreme Court has recently stated
that “the obviousness analysis can not be confined by a formalistic
conception of the words teaching, suggestion and motivation.” KSR Int’l
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S.
2007). Further, the court stated “[t]he combination of familiar elements
according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct.
1727, 1739, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (U.S. 2007).
When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives
and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same
field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a
predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability. For the same
reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013