Appeal No. 96-3101
Application 08/020,570
claim 1. With regard to claim 1 (see page 30 of the brief),
the only limitation expressly argued as a distinction over the
European patent document is the recitation that the resistance
of the threshold value switch is varied between its lower and
higher resistance states for activating and deactivating the
associated image point or ?region? as it is called in the
claim. We cannot agree with appellant’s position for the
reasons stated by the examiner as quoted supra. When rendered
conductive by a triggering voltage, the transistor 16 of the
European patent document will have a low resistance state, and
when rendered nonconductive by reducing the base or gate
voltage to zero, the transistor 16 will have a high resistance
state.
Admittedly, the transistor 16 in the addressing circuit
of the European patent document is a three terminal device,
not a two terminal device as argued by appellant on page 28 of
the brief. However, none of the appealed claims is limited to
a two terminal switch with the exception of claim 13.
Therefore, as far as claims 1 through 12 and 14 through 30 are
concerned, this argument, like others made in the argument
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007