Appeal 2007-1283
Application 09/772,477
two lines are addressed simultaneously with the same data. However,
Appellants argue that both of these methods result in a loss of signal quality
due to a loss of resolution and/or sharpness (id.).
In contrast, Appellants contend the instant invention improves upon
prior art methods by grouping the lines differently in successive frames
and/or different areas of the display, resulting in the desired reduction of the
address period without an accompanying loss of resolution. Appellants
point to page 2, lines 29-31 of Appellants’ Specification for support (Br. 7).
Appellants note that the Examiner relies on Kida to show the driving
of two neighboring rows as one unit in a first field, and for shifting the rows
in a second field. Appellants argue that Kida makes no distinction between
subfields having less significant bits. Thus, Appellants contend that
applying Kida’s technique to only some of the subfields would require an
increase in the frame memory, and would not convert the interlaced scan
signal to a progressive scan signal. Therefore, Appellants conclude the
skilled artisan would not have been led by Kida to neighboring rows of only
some of the subfields, i.e., the [lower] four bits of the Wani signal, scanned
at the same [common] luminance (Br. 7-8). Appellants further assert that
only with the aid of hindsight gleaned from Appellants’ own teachings does
the addressing of the same, or average, [i.e., common] luminance data to
adjacent lines of only the least significant subframes become obvious
(Br. 9).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013