Appeal No. 2001-1860
Application No. 08/993,104
because in Takahara’s Figure 1 “driving from one scan line Gp1 to another scan line
Gp2 is performed asynchronously.” (Answer at 10.)
Takahara describes (col. 14, l. 40 - col. 15, l. 2) operation whereby a voltage of
positive polarity is selectively applied to a single gate signal line (e.g., Gp1). Each
selection is asynchronous with respect to the selection of transistor cells in other lines.
Takahara’s operation is thus “asynchronous” in the same sense that operation in
appellants’ claim 1 is “asynchronous,” as appellants would have us interpret the claim --
i.e., asynchronous with respect to “other cells” within the system. We thus adopt
appellants’ claim interpretation for the purpose of comparing the applied prior art with
the requirements of instant claim 1. We consider the examiner’s finding that the
combination of Takahara and Shields teaches the allegedly lacking feature of
“asynchronously” to be supported by the record.
We sustain the rejection of claims 1-14 and 17-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as
appellants have not shown error in the rejection. However, we reverse, pro forma, the
rejection of claim 16 under section 103 because the claim purports to depend from
canceled claim 15. We are unable to ascertain the metes and bounds of claim 16 to
any extent.
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007