Appeal No. 1997-0627
Application 08/266,159
pixels, the examiner is of the opinion (Answer, pages 3 and 4) that “it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify each of the gating signal lines in
Figs. 1, 3 and 8 of Toshichi [sic, Maekawa] to be connected to the driving elements of a single row of
pixels so as to control the each row of pixels individually.”
We agree with appellants’ arguments (Brief, pages 13 and 14) that “two rows of pixels have to
be scanned simultaneously” in Maekawa, and that “data for two rows of pixels is necessary at the same
time.” Thus, the modification proposed by the examiner would defeat the whole purpose of the circuits
of Figures 1, 3 and 8 of Maekawa.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 13 and 14 is reversed because the examiner
has resorted to impermissible hindsight to demonstrate the obviousness of the claimed invention (Brief,
page 18).
Turning to independent claim 6, appellants’ admitted prior art was only relied on to show the
timing of signals to the driving elements. Since the admitted prior art does not cure the noted
shortcoming in the teachings of Maekawa, we will reverse the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 5, 6,
8, 10 and 15 through 17.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 9 is likewise reversed because the switching pulse
teachings of Inoue likewise do not cure the noted shortcoming in the teachings of Maekawa.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007