Appeal No. 96-0236
Application 08/187,364
address conductor . . . in response to the application of
selection signals to that address conductor" (our emphasis):
As to claims 1 and 13, it would have been obvious to
have the control signal (CV) [in Hoshino] to indicate
electrical current flowing in at least one address
conductor in response to the selection signals (V ) to
LCD
the address conductor since Hoshino applies the signals
(V )to drive a display(1) (see Hoshino’s figures 1,4;
LCD
page 5, lines 15-26; page 6 and page 7, lines 1-5) and
Kuijk teaches the current will flow into an address
conductor and a data conductor when a driving voltage is
applied to the matrix display (see Kuijk's figure 3 and
page 3, lines 2-3)[which state that Figure 3 shows the
current-voltage characteristic for the non-linear
switching device]. [Suppl. Answer at 3-4.]
Despite the use of the term "obvious," it is apparent from the
foregoing argument, the lack of any suggestion in Kuijk to
measure current, and the examiner's failure to proposed any
further structural modification of Hoshino that the examiner's
actual position is that Hoshino as modified to employ Kuijk's
non-linear switching elements inherently will satisfy the
claim limitation in question, i.e., that detected frequency of
the status variations in the signal electrode data signals
inherently will be "indicative of" the current flowing in at
least one of the display elements.
Appellant challenges the rejection on several grounds,
the first being that Hoshino and Kuijk collectively fail to
- 9 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007