Appeal No. 1996-2966
Application No. 08/257,232
prior art rejection of the pending claims is not appropriate.
Thus, we do not sustain the rejections of the claims under
35 U.S.C. § 103. Our reversal of the examiner’s rejections
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is a technical reversal and is not based
on the merits of the rejection, the applied prior art or the
arguments of appellants.
Although we have not considered the examiner’s
rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 on the merits,
we offer some general comments which appellants and the
examiner might find helpful. The current record does not make
a very persuasive case for either the examiner or for
appellants. The claimed invention seems to be directed to the
replacement of the conventional use of shift registers to move
data within an array of spatial light modulators to use of
conventional “full frame” xy addressing circuitry for
accomplishing the same data movement. We are not fully
convinced that the artisan would have modified the structure
of Gelbart with the teachings of Smith as asserted by the
examiner, however, appellants’ attacks against the teachings
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007