Appeal No. 1998-0750
Application 08/232,135
explicit. In re Bozek, supra. The motivation to combine the prior
art would have been to provide uniform brightness in the diode
cold cathode display panel of Kumar.
We will sustain the rejection of independent claims 7 and 47,
and claims 11, 13, and 17 which depend from claim 7, as obvious
over Fukuoka. We will also sustain the rejection of independent
claim 28, and claims 29 and 32 which depend therefrom, as obvious
over this reference. With respect to claim 7, appellants state
that the limitation “removing said second voltage signal from said
pixel in response to a comparison of said first and reference
voltage signals, wherein said removing means turns off said
pixel,” is not met by Fukuoka. It is noted that the examiner
acknowledges that Fukuoka does not explicitly disclose removing
means turning off the pixel and that the examiner takes the
position that it was well-known in the art that when no voltage is
applied to an electrode or pixel, the pixel will be turned off,
and that when the voltage V is 0, the voltage V is reduced toIN OUT
an equal 0. Appellants assault this position, asserting that a 0
level voltage is still a voltage and is not the same as removing a
voltage from the pixel.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007