Appeal 2007-1283
Application 09/772,477
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Wani in view of Kida.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wani in view of Kida and Huang.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wani in view of Kida and Nagai.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wani in view of Kida and Prince.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we
make reference to the Briefs, the Final Action, and the Answer for the
respective details thereof.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, and 8
We consider first the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 3, 5, and 8
as being unpatentable over Wani in view of Kida. Since Appellants’
arguments with respect to this rejection have treated these claims as a single
group which stands or falls together, we will select independent claim 1 as
the representative claim for this rejection because we find it is the broadest
independent claim before us. (See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004)).
Appellants acknowledge that Wani teaches the subfields representing
the less significant bits (referred to as the lower four bits) are displayed by
interlace scanning (Br. 7). Appellants note that interlace scanning is a well
known term of art, which means that every other line is scanned for one
subfield, and the remaining lines are scanned for the next subfield (id.).
Appellants further acknowledge that Wani teaches a second method where
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013