Appeal No. 96-1709
Application 08/149,361
appellants, the two displays in Fujisawa receive separate
drive signals rather that a common drive signal as claimed.
In view of the above remarks, the examiner has either
failed to properly interpret the claim language or has
improperly interpreted the teachings of Fujisawa or perhaps
both. Therefore, the examiner has failed to properly address
the obviousness of the claimed recitation of providing a
common drive signal to both displays using a single driver
circuit. In the absence of this explanation, we agree with
appellants that the examiner has failed to establish a prima
facie case of the obviousness of the invention set forth in
the appealed claims. In light of the above
observations, the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 6,
10-13, 15 and 17-19 cannot be sustained.
2. The rejection of claim 14 as
unpatentable over the teachings of
Shirochi, Fujisawa, Sakariassen and
Suntola.
Claim 14 depends from independent claim 11 considered
above. The additional citation of Suntola does not cure the
deficiencies in the combined teachings of Shirochi, Fujisawa
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007