Appeal 2007-0961
Application 10/264,131
which actuates a respective image element. The X circuit might fairly be
considered a control circuit in the context of claim 1, but that would not
account for a pulse density capture circuit as claimed, digital or otherwise.
We therefore agree with Appellants to the extent that a prima facie
case for obviousness has not been established for the subject matter as a
whole of instant claim 1. The rejection as applied to independent claims 6
and 14 (Answer 6-7) also neglects to specify the corresponding structures in
the applied references that are thought to teach each of the claimed elements,
which again would require speculation as to the basis for the rejection that is
before us. We thus do not sustain the § 103(a) rejection of claims 1-8 and
14, in view of the independent claims and the claims that incorporate the
limitations of the independent claims.
Claims 10, 12, 13, 20, and 21 -- § 103(a) over Daniel, Lys, and
Linford
We sustain the rejection of claims 10, 12, 13, 20, and 21 under
35 U.S.C § 103(a) as unpatentable over Daniel, Lys, and Linford.
Appellants’ arguments in response to the rejection (Br. 24-26) rely on the
supposed deficiencies of Daniel that we have considered in the rejection of
claims 9 and 11. Representative claim 13 is more specific than claim 11 in
reciting temporarily providing an “optical input signal” to generate display
information. In addition to the annotation function taught by Daniel, the
reference also teaches that the emitter is capable of transmitting coded orders
to designated parts of the screen. The orders can be received by the
receivers Re, and passed on to the appropriate image elements by means of
the network of L and C electrodes. Daniel 4:22-31.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013