Appeal No. 1998-0750
Application 08/232,135
amplifier 1 is an external circuit in that it is not part of the
display panel itself.
We will sustain the rejection of dependent claims 9, 10, 16
and 49 as obvious over Fukuoka and Kumar. Appellants argue that
the references do not teach means for removing the voltage signal
from the pixel in response to a comparison. This is essentially
the same argument made with respect to the rejection of claim 7,
which argument we found unpersuasive. Otherwise, appellants’
observations that Fukuoka does not teach that a pixel is of a
diode configuration having an anode and a cathode and that Kumar
does not teach any type of compensation of energy or current
signal supplied to an electrode of a pixel do not overcome the
rejection. Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking
references individually. The prior art must be evaluated as a
whole. In re Evanega, 829 F.2d 1110, 1112, 4 USPQ2d 1249, 1251
(Fed. Cir. 1987).
Claims 15, 30, 38 and 45 are not separately argued by
appellants and we will sustain the rejection of these claims as
obvious over Fukuoka and Kanayama for the reasons given by the
examiner.
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007