Appeal No. 96-1378
Application 08/096,626
anticipates the claim. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the video
voltages stored in analog shift register 22 and applied in parallel to the
column conductors can be considered to be "time dependent signals" (i.e., each
stored voltage took a different amount of time to reach its position in the
shift register), Young does not use the TFTs as current sources for charging
the display elements to levels dependent on the duration of the applied time
dependent signals, as required by the claim. Instead, the TFTs apply analog
voltages to the display elements for fixed time intervals which correspond to
the row selection time period TL (Fig. 2). Young explains that "each
switching transistor 11 of the addressed row is switched on for a time Tl
["TL" in Fig. 2] during which the video information signals are transferred
from the column conductors 15 to the display elements 12" (col. 5, lines 22-
26) and that "[t]he gating signals applied to Ri comprise a positive pulse
which turns on the row of n-channel TFTs enabling their associated picture
elements to be loaded with [the] video signal voltage[s] then present on the
column conductors 15" (col. 6, lines 31-36).
For the foregoing reason, the ' 102(b) rejection of claim 1 is reversed,
as is the ' 102(b) rejection of claims 2-12 and 16-23, which stand or fall
therewith.
B. The ' 103 rejection
Dependent claims 13-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. ' 103 as being
unpatentable over Young considered with Ohwada. In view of appellants'
indication that these claims stand or fall together (Brief at 7), we will
consider only claim 13, which calls for resetting the TFTs to a predetermined
level prior to biasing them for current source operation. Ohwada does not
cure the above-noted deficiency in Young with respect to claim 1, on which
claim 13 depends through claim 2. As a result, the rejection of claims 13 is
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007