Appeal No. 1998-1319
Application No. 08/466,188
find no evidence that maintaining the constant voltage level
for the entire horizontal scanning period would have been
obvious to the skilled artisan, we cannot sustain the
obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claims 9, 10,
15, and 28, 29, and 34 through 44.
Further, as to claims 30 through 33, the only patent
claims which recite a latch circuit and a decode circuit,
which appear in each of claims 30 to 33, are claims 10 and 11.
However, neither of claims 10 and 11 recites "a voltage output
circuit for outputting a single multi-tone voltage having a
constant voltage level ... during a period in which said Y
direction driving circuit is determining said one of said
plurality of continuous display dots supplied with the display
voltage." Since the examiner has provided no evidence as to
why the missing limitation would have been obvious to the
skilled artisan in view of the patent claims, we cannot
sustain the obviousness-type double patenting rejection of
claims 30 through 33.
Claims 18 through 27 are very similar to patent claims 1,
2, 4, 5, 12, and 14 through 18, respectively, with three
differences: 1) the present claims include an information
15
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007