Appeal 2007-0563
Application 10/001,940
1 The obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic
2 conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation,
3 or by overemphasis on the importance of published articles and
4 the explicit content of issued patents. The diversity of inventive
5 pursuits and of modern technology counsels against limiting the
6 analysis in this way. In many fields it may be that there is little
7 discussion of obvious techniques or combinations, and it often
8 may be the case that market demand, rather than scientific
9 literature, will drive design trends. Granting patent protection to
10 advances that would occur in the ordinary course without real
11 innovation retards progress and may, in the case of patents
12 combining previously known elements, deprive prior inventions
13 of their value or utility. Id. at 1396.
14
15 E. Analysis
16 Claim 1 recites “a color value stored for each pixel in the display
17 device.” The Examiner has failed to sufficiently rebut Applicants’ argument
18 that neither Iwamura nor Montgomery describe “a color value stored for
19 each pixel in the display device.” We agree with Applicants that the
20 Examiner is improperly relying on Montgomery’s description of a color
21 value stored for each pixel of an object within a display device (FF 25) as
22 meeting the limitation. However, storing a color value for an object, which
23 object is within a display device, is not the same thing as storing a color
24 value for each pixel in a display device. The language “each pixel in the
25 display device” means pixels in the entire display device, not just those
26 pixels that make up an object. The object(s) described by Montgomery have
27 not been shown to cover the entire display device, but are understood to
28 cover only particular areas of the display device.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013