Appeal 2006-3013
Application 10/367,849
&30), and the light emitting element (40). (Fact 14). Thus, in the display
shown in Appellant’s admitted prior art Figure 22, the load on the power line
is greater than the load on the data line. As we indicated previously, one
skilled in the art would have known to size conductive traces based upon the
current load. (Fact 11). With this knowledge, we find that the skilled artisan
would have made the power lines wider than the data lines, i.e., we find that
the skilled artisan would have recognized that there existed a known solution
of a known problem of sizing lines of a circuit board. Further, with respect
to claim 31, which recites that the “resistance value per unit length of the
one power-feed line being set to be smaller than that of the one data line,”
we find that one skilled in the art would have recognized that making the
power line wider than the data line, the resistance value per unit length of the
power line would be less than that of the data line. (Fact 9).
Further, Appellant’s arguments that the combination of the references
does not teach the advantages of the claimed invention is of no consequence
to our new rejection as independent claims do not recite limitations drawn to
the advantages argued by Appellant on page 10 of the Brief. Accordingly,
we now reject independent claims 14 and 31. We leave it to the Examiner to
determine if rejections based upon similar rationale apply to the remainder
of the pending claims.
CONCLUSION
Appellant’s contentions have convinced us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 14, 31, and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), and we reverse
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013