Appeal No. 1997-1374
Application No. 08/415,101
The Examiner has expressed no rational or motivation to
control an ordinal array to act as a cardinal array.
Appellants further argue, in their brief and throughout
their reply brief, that the claim limitation of "operate in
unison" is totally different than the "in unison" used by the
Examiner, as reasoned from the applied references. Appellants
state:
The applicant’s chosen meaning for the term "in
unison" is clear. The original specification
states, on page 19, lines 6-7, "[a]ll of the
elements in a pixel block are controlled in unison
such that the pixel block acts like a single pixel"
(emphasis added). One claimed embodiment of the
invention further specifies that the "address
electrodes within each sub-array are electrically
connected," a limitation that physically requires
the mirror elements to rotate, not merely
simultaneously as interpreted by the Examiner, but
rather the sub-array "acts like a single pixel" by
moving in the same direction and at the same time.
(Reply brief-page 2.)
We understand the Examiner’s explanation of Hornbeck,
that a line can be considered to be a sub-array, and that
since Hornbeck’s line is operated "simultaneously and
similarly", one could view this operation as in unison.
(Answer-page 4.)
-8-8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007