Appeal No. 96-2025
Application 07/860,254
symmetrical voltage waveform as shown in Appellants' Figure 6.
In particular, Appellants argue on pages 13 and 14 of the
brief that as indicated in Figure 6 (1), the modulation
voltage applied to the N driving field has a width W1 which
corresponds to the claimed binary coded signal. Further, the
modulated voltage in the P driving field has a width W2 which
corresponds to the binary complement of the width of the
binary code signal W1 applied to the N driving field.
Combining this modulation voltage with the writing voltage
illustrated in Figure 6 (2) provides the symmetrical voltage
waveform provided to the picture elements illustrated in
Figure 6 (3). Appellants further argue that as is clearly
illustrated in Figure 6 (3) the voltage waveform applied to
the picture element in the N driving field is symmetrical to
the voltage waveform applied to the picture element in the P
driving field. As a result, Appellants argue that the
Appellants' claims recite either a symmetrical drive method or
apparatus that provides this symmetrical voltage waveform to
the picture elements. Appellants argue on page 15 of the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007