Appeal No. 2006-1726
Application No. 09/725,849
crystal pixels. The Takahashi reference also teaches providing a
second selecting voltage in the second half of a second
horizontal period to discharge the overcharge voltage across the
liquid crystal pixel cells. The Miwa reference3 is relied upon
for its teaching of a ferro-electric liquid crystal and an anti-
ferro-electric liquid crystal display. The combination of
Takahashi and Miwa, as suggested by the Examiner, does not amount
to the claimed limitation of applying a first signal to the
pixels for charging thereof during the beginning of a frame, and
applying a second signal to the pixels for discharging thereof
during the ending of the frame. Despite Miwa’s teachings,4
Takahashi’s suggestion of supplying a first signal for charging
the pixels during a first frame and supplying a second signal for
discharging the pixel in a subsequent frame violates the claimed
limitation of charging and discharging the pixels within a single
frame. This violation of the claimed limitation is not remedied
3 We observe that the Miwa reference appears to teach issuing two control
signals during two terms of a single frame to thereby display an image and a
blank image within the single frame. Particularly, Miwa teaches that a first
control signal is provided during the first term of the frame to the data line
circuits (4a and 4b), which supply an image signal to the data lines to
thereby display an image. Further, Miwa teaches that a second control signal
is provided during the second term of the frame to the data line circuits,
which in turn supply a non image signal different from the image signal to the
data lines to thereby provide a blanking non- image signal. See figure 2. See
also column 3, lines 28-49.
Although the Miwa reference would seem to raise a question of
patentability of representative claim 1 under 35 USC 102, we have no such
rejection before us, and we therefore decline to rule on the merits of any
such rejection. In any further prosecution in this application, the Examiner
should consider the applicability of a 102 rejection of representative claim 1
based on the Miwa reference.
4 See Id.
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007