Appeal No. 1998-1319
Application No. 08/466,188
lines 11-14). Therefore, we again are not persuaded by
appellants' argument, and we will affirm the rejection of
claims 30 and 32 over Aoki.
Regarding the obviousness-type double patenting
rejection, the examiner merely states (Answer, page 3) that
the pending claims "are broader than claims 1-20 of U.S.
Patent 5,298,912," without explaining how the claims
correspond and particularly how they differ. Again we are
left to do this analysis ourselves. We disagree with the
examiner that the present claims are merely broader than the
patent claims, as even a cursory analysis of the claims would
reveal. After a careful review of both the patent claims and
the claims on appeal, we find that only claims 18 through 27
would have been obvious over the patent claims, as will become
clear from following discussion of the two sets of claims.
As noted above, appealed claims 9, 10, 15, 28, 29, and 34
through 44 specify that the voltage output to the matrix
display has a constant voltage level during a horizontal
scanning period. Although each of the patented claims recites
that the output voltage must be a constant level, none of the
claims specifies the period for the constant level. As we
14
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007