Appeal No. 1997-2587
Application No. 08/078,864
logic circuitry has a “unique” address identifying its
location for storing data representing the gray scale of the
pixel element. We find no such “unique” address associated
with the counters of Green. Since we will not sustain the
rejections of claim 8 and claim 15, their dependent claims 9,
11 through 14, 17 through 20, 25 and 26 will stand with claims
8 and 15.
We also will not sustain the rejection of claims 22
through 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Claim 22 makes it clear
that the logic circuitry has a pair of conductors
interconnecting each pixel element and that one of the
conductors is connected to a clock signal line while the other
conductor is connected to supply serial pixel address data and
serial pixel gray scale data to the logic circuitry. We find
no such disclosure or suggestion in Green and the examiner has
not particularly indicated what, in Green, is relied on for
such a teaching. Claims 23 and 24 stand with claim 22.
We have sustained the rejections of claim 4 [under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b)] and claim 21 [under 35 U.S.C. § 103] but we
have not sustained the rejections of claims 8, 9, 25 and 26
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007