Ex parte ERHART et al. - Page 3




          Appeal No. 1997-0321                                                        
          Application 08/052,494                                                      






               Representative claim 10 is reproduced as follows:                      
               10.  A display driver circuit having an output for                     
          driving a flat panel display, comprising means for detecting                
          integrity of bonding of said output to said flat panel                      
          display, said bond integrity detecting means in turn                        
          comprising;                                                                 
               means for driving said output to a first voltage level;                
               means for applying a test mode current current to said                 
          output to change voltage on said output to a second voltage                 
          level;                                                                      
               means for defining a sampling time following initiation                
          of application of said test mode current to said output; and                
               means for indicating whether voltage on said output has                
          reached said second voltage level at said sampling time.                    
               Claims  10 to 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,2                                                                
          first paragraph .3                                                            
               Rather than repeat the positions and the arguments of                  


               2Claim 11 is indicated to depend on claim 1, however,                  
          claim 1 has been canceled.  We think that claim 11 is supposed              
          to depend on claim 10.  Appellants and the Examiner may want                
          to review this dependancy.  Our opinion is unaffected by that               
          as there is no specific discussion of individual claims in                  
          either the brief or the answer.                                             
               3The Examiner has withdrawn [answer, page 6] the                       
          rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102.                                            
                                          3                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007