Appeal No. 1997-0830
Application 08/132,998
We note that claim 75 recites a similar limitation.
On page 35 of Appellants' specification, lines 2
through 5, Appellants state that
since the liquid-crystal panel is a capaci-
tive load, the charging/discharging time
period thereof differs depending upon a
resistance which intervenes between a ca-
pacitance portion and an external voltage.
On page 35, lines 5 through 7, of Appellants' specification,
Appellants state that as the intervening resistance is higher,
the charging/discharging time period becomes longer. Thus,
Appellants disclose that the first voltage is provided with
a smaller time constant by controlling the voltage divider
circuit so that the impedance is smaller in the first period
than the impedance in the second period. Therefore, Appel-
lants' claims 64, 67, 70 and 75 are providing a control cir-
cuit for controlling the voltage divider circuit in a manner
that a voltage is applied to the pixels during the first time
period having a smaller time constant than a second time
period.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007