Appeal 2007-0831
Application 10/417,656
Ranganathan, like Smith, is directed to “energy savings in computer
displays and particularly to energy savings in displays of mobile computing
systems” (col. 1, ll. 7 to 9). Ranganathan states in the “Background of the
Invention”:
Another example involves reducing the
number of pixels to consume less energy. Fonts,
icons and graphics can be designed to minimize
the number of pixels. With reduced font size the
number of pixels to be turned on can be smaller.
However, this approach can impact readability.
(Col. 1, l. 66 to col. 2, l. 3.)
The Examiner contends “it would have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of controlling a display taught
by SMITH, such that power conservation means includes pixel reduction by
displaying a reduced-pixel, whole image that comprises fewer active pixels
than an original, complete image previously presented in the display, as
taught/suggested by Ranganathan” (Answer 4). “The suggestion/motivation
for doing so would have been for consuming less energy
(RANGANATHAN: column 1, line 66 - column 2, line 3)” (Answer 4).
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“Obviousness is tested by ‘what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.’” In re
Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1075, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1599 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
“Any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a
reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into
account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013