Appeal 2007-0961
Application 10/264,131
receive a pulse train signal indicative of a desired brightness or hue, but
rather display types where currents and voltages are provided as necessary
for functioning of image elements (e.g., liquid crystal, plasma, or
electroluminescent displays). See Daniel 4:15-21.
In any event, we do not find the teachings in Daniel that the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 attributes to the reference. Nor do we
understand the rejection to be based on simple substitution of light emitting
diode (LED) display elements and associated control circuitry, as taught by
Lys, for the display elements and control circuitry described by Daniel.
Moreover, as we have noted, Daniel teaches sending coded display
information over line and column electrodes, which would seem to lack
compatibility with a duty cycle to control brightness or hue of emitters.
Daniel teaches that “average brightness” (8:32-36), “color,” and “light
intensity” (9:11-18) can be controlled, but does not describe how such
controls may be effected within the constraints of the displays that are
described. Presumably, brightness or hue may be controlled by comparison
of the coded display information with instruction words in ROM 4 (Figs. 4,
5), which triggers the functioning of comparator circuit CO. See Daniel 6:9-
18. Based on this theory, there may be, in some sense, reception of “a pulse
train signal indicative of a desired brightness or hue.” However, ROM 4 is a
digital, as opposed to analog, circuit element. The ROM described by
Daniel is not part of whatever unidentified (analog) “pulse density capture
circuit” upon which the rejection relies, with the capture circuit responding
to an individual associated one of the (also unidentified) control circuits.
In a different rejection, the Examiner corresponds (Answer 10) a
claimed pulse density capture circuit to Daniel’s X circuit (e.g., Fig. 2),
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013