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.) -8-8Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007