Appeal No. 97-2028
Application No. 07/954,290
Kanbe patent discloses an AC data signal and an AC
selecting signal in various instances is completely
irrelevant as to whether or not these signals are AC
holding signals, which they are not. Nor are any of
these signals effective to hold the display state of
the respective pixels, as recited in the respective
claims.
With respect to Figure 13(e) of Kanbe, appellants argue
(Reply Brief, page 8) that
the Fig. 13(e) signal is applied when it is desired to
refresh (or maintain the display state) of a selected
pixel. There is no suggestion in Kanbe of applying the
Fig. 13(e) signal during non-selecting periods to hold
the display state of the pixels.
Appellants also argue (Reply Brief, page 16) that each of
the claims on appeal limits the pulse width of the AC signal to
the selecting period, and not to twice the selecting period as in
Kanbe.
We agree with appellants’ argument (Reply Brief, page 6)
that each of the claims on appeal recites “the application of AC
holding signals during a specific time interval for a specific
purpose and having a specific upper limit pulse width.” An AC
holding signal with a specific limit on the pulse width as
required by each of the claims on appeal can not be found in
Kanbe. The examiner’s explanation of Figure 13 does not convince
us that Kanbe has a disclosure of such specifically claimed
subject matter. Thus, we will reverse the interference estoppel
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007