Appeal No. 1997-0830
Application 08/132,998
in the prior art, or by implications contained in such teach-
ings or suggestions. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 995, 217
USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1983). "Additionally, when determining
obviousness, the claimed invention should be considered as a
whole; there is no legally recognizable 'heart' of the inven-
tion." Para-Ordnance Mfg. v. SGS Importers Int'l, Inc., 73
F.3d 1085, 1087, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995), cert.
denied, 519 U.S. 822 (1996) citing W. L. Gore & Assoc., Inc.
v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1548, 220 USPQ 303, 309 (Fed.
Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
Claims 64 through 77 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki. On pages 5 through
8 of the brief, Appellants argue that Yamazaki fails to teach
or suggest a control circuit for controlling the voltage
divider circuit so that a first voltage is selected from said
m voltages in said first period, and a second voltage is
selected in said second period from said m voltages, in re-
sponse to said time signal and said signal corresponding to
said display data, in a manner that a time constant, when said
first voltage is output to the data lines, is smaller than a
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007