Appeal 2007-1283
Application 09/772,477
group. Appellants state that the grouping of the row electrodes typically
changes cyclically for subsequent addressing cycles (Br. 12).
Appellants contend Prince makes clear that addressing cycles apply to
fields or frames of information. Appellants argue that Prince does not teach
or suggest that these fields or frames are or may be divided into subfields or
subframes of varying significance. Thus, Appellants conclude that Prince is
no more relevant to Appellants’ claimed invention than Kida, which together
with Wani, fails to teach or suggest the invention claimed by claim 1, for the
reasons previously stated (id.).
The Examiner disagrees. Regarding Appellants’ argument that Prince
does not teach or suggest fields or frames divided into subfields or
subframes of varying significance, the Examiner notes that these limitations
are not recited in claim 7. Instead, the Examiner points out that claim 7
further limits claim 1 by requiring that the “grouping of lines for each
successive frame or field and for different regions of the display device is
performed in a random manner” (claim 7). The Examiner contends Prince
teaches that the number of row electrodes forming each group and the
algorithm for changing the groupings of row electrodes in subsequent
addressing cycles can be varied. Thus, the Examiner finds Prince, as
combined with Wani and Kida, is relevant to Appellants’ claimed invention
(Answer 5-6).
We note that the initial burden of establishing unpatentability, on any
ground, rests with the Examiner. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24
USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). “If that burden is met, the burden of
coming forward with evidence or argument shifts to the applicant. After
14
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013