Appeal No. 2001-1860
Application No. 08/993,104
“asynchronously” as being, in essence, contradictory. The examiner concludes that the
language of the claims renders the subject matter vague and indefinite.
Appellants’ position (Brief at 8-10) is that the examiner has improperly relied on
“extrinsic evidence” by referring to dictionary definitions of the relevant terms. However,
appellants do not point to any portion of the instant specification that sets out any
definitions for the words to inform the reader that they are to be considered of scope
different from the ordinary, customary meanings of the words. Appellants argue instead
that, as used in the specification, “asynchronously” refers “to when other cells within an
LCD system are updated or accessed.” (Id. at 6.) According to appellants,
“asynchronously” may also refer to “how a voltage potential may be driven to some
storage elements of an LCD display independently of activity occurring with other
storage elements.” (Id. at 13.)
We agree with the examiner that the plain language of the claims sets forth
apparent contradictory limitations with respect to recited elements. Claim 1, for
example, recites that the “first circuit configuration” is to “simultaneously and
asynchronously drive respective positive and negative voltage signals onto respective
voltage signal storage elements.” In our reading of the claim, the first circuit
configuration drives voltage signals onto signal storage elements in both a
“simultaneous” and “asynchronous” manner. However, in our view, the recited action
cannot be both “simultaneous” and “asynchronous.” We thus agree with the examiner
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007