Appeal No. 97-2028
Application No. 07/954,290
Reference is made to the briefs and the answer for the
respective positions of the appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
Under interference estoppel, the losing party (i.e.,
appellants) is only estopped to obtain claims which read directly
on disclosures of subject matter clearly common to both the
winning party’s application (i.e., the disclosure in U.S. Patent
No. 4,655,561 to Kanbe) and that of the losing party. See In re
Risse, 378 F.2d 948, 957, 154 USPQ 1, 8 (CCPA 1967). In other
words, appellants are estopped to obtain claims that could have
been made counts in the interference. The Patent Office has the
initial burden of showing that appellants’ claims read on
disclosures that are clearly common to both the winning party’s
application and that of appellants’ application. See In re
Wilding, 535 F.2d 631, 635, 190 USPQ 59, 63 (CCPA 1976).
Appellants argue that “claims 42-116 recite various
limitations on the pulse width and formation of A.C. stabilizing
signals applied to the liquid crystal material to prevent the
unintended switching of pixels,” and that the “functional
language recited in these claims makes it clear that the A.C.
signal is an A.C. holding signal, which is separate and distinct
from the data and scanning signals applied to the pixels” (Brief,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007