Appeal 2007-1283
Application 09/772,477
Appellants further acknowledge that Nagi also teaches that his method
of driving a plasma display panel can be applied to each of a plurality of
subfields. Nevertheless, Appellants contend that Nagi does not teach or
suggest applying a common luminance value to lines of a set of scanning
lines of at least one of the least significant subfields, as claimed by
Appellants’ claim 1 (Br. 11-12).
We have fully addressed the limitations argued by Appellants with
respect to claims 1 and 4 supra. We note that Appellants have not presented
any substantive arguments directed to the separate patentability of dependent
claim 6 (See Br. 10-11). As discussed supra, we find no deficiencies in
Wani and Kida with respect to independent claim 1, from which claim 6
depends. In the absence of a separate argument with respect to the
dependent claims, those claims stand or fall with the representative
independent claim. See In re Young, 927 F.2d at 590, 18 USPQ2d at 1091.
See also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004). Therefore, we will sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 6 as being unpatentable over Wani in view of
Kida and Nagai for the same reasons discussed supra with respect to
independent claim 1.
Dependent claim 7
Lastly, we consider the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 7 as
being unpatentable over Wani in view of Kida and Prince.
Appellants note that Prince discloses an addressing method and
apparatus for increasing the selection ratio of an rms-responding, liquid
crystal display by grouping together adjacent row electrodes and applying
the same row addressing signal to each of the electrodes in a particular
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013