Appeal No. 2004-0045
Application No. 09/044,421
a second scanning for erasing the display of said individual
ones of the plurality of pixels are carried out in this order,
during each period in which the back light emits red, green, blue
light in a time-sharing manner;
wherein an electric field is applied to respective ones of
said pixels of said liquid crystal panel at each of said first
scanning and said second scanning, a direction of said electric
field applied to each of said pixels during said first scanning
being opposite direction of said electric field applied to each of
said pixels respectively during said second scanning, and a
magnitude of said electric field applied to each of said pixels
during said first scanning is equivalent to a magnitude of said
electric field applied to each of said pixels respectively during
said second scanning.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Hunter 5,359,345 Oct. 25, 1994
Kanbe et al. (Kanbe) 5,877,739 Mar. 02, 1999
(filed May 25, 1995)
Claim 1, 2, 4-10, and 12-16, all of the appealed claims, stand
finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Hunter in view of Kanbe.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs2 and the Answer for the
respective details.
2 The Appeal Brief was filed October 11, 2002 (Paper No. 24). In
response to the Examiner’s Answer mailed January 16, 2003 (Paper No. 25), a
Reply Brief was filed March 24, 2003 (Paper No. 26), which was acknowledged
and entered by the Examiner in the communication dated June 18, 2003 (Paper
No. 27).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007