Appeal No. 97-2028
Application No. 07/954,290
shown in FIG. 13(e)(column 19, line 65 through column
20, line 7).
The examiner contends that “Figure 13(c) is a A.C. signal
with an offset of V{t2/(t1+t2)}, Figure 13(d) is an A.C. signal
with an offset of -V{t1/(t1+t2)} and Figure 13(e) is an A.C.
signal without an offset” (Answer, page 13). The examiner is
also of the opinion (Answer, page 15) that:
The A.C. holding signal comprises figures 13(b) and
13(e) which results in the voltage 13(b)-13(e) being
applied to the liquid crystal. Since 13(b) = 0 volts,
the bipolar voltage -13(e) is applied to the liquid
crystal. Since the application time of 13(a) and 13(e)
are equal, appellants [sic, appellants’] claims are
met.
In response to the examiner’s explanation of Figures 13(a)
through 13(e), appellants argue (Reply Brief, pages 5 and 6)
that:
Referring specifically to Figs. 13(c) and 13(d),
one can readily observe that these signals are merely
simple DC pulses having a single polarity. Despite
being so far afield of fundamental electrical
principle, the Examiner’s incredulous assertion that a
simple DC pulse can somehow be characterized as an AC
signal is representative of the Examiner’s unyielding,
unreasonable and inaccurate approach in this case.
The Examiner’s contention that Kanbe discloses AC
holding signals in various figures is equally
erroneous. The mere fact that in various drawings
Kanbe illustrates AC signals is completely irrelevant
since the appealed claims explicitly require the
application of AC holding signals during a specific
time interval for a specific purpose and having a
specific upper limit pulse width. The fact that the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007