Appeal No. 96-1709 Application 08/149,361 appellants, the two displays in Fujisawa receive separate drive signals rather that a common drive signal as claimed. In view of the above remarks, the examiner has either failed to properly interpret the claim language or has improperly interpreted the teachings of Fujisawa or perhaps both. Therefore, the examiner has failed to properly address the obviousness of the claimed recitation of providing a common drive signal to both displays using a single driver circuit. In the absence of this explanation, we agree with appellants that the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of the obviousness of the invention set forth in the appealed claims. In light of the above observations, the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 6, 10-13, 15 and 17-19 cannot be sustained. 2. The rejection of claim 14 as unpatentable over the teachings of Shirochi, Fujisawa, Sakariassen and Suntola. Claim 14 depends from independent claim 11 considered above. The additional citation of Suntola does not cure the deficiencies in the combined teachings of Shirochi, Fujisawa 8Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007