Appeal No. 1999-1800
Application No. 08/752,667
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 13,
mailed February 9, 1999) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to appellant's Brief (Paper
No. 12, filed January 19, 1999) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 14,
filed April 2, 1999) for appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art references, and the respective positions articulated
by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1
through 21.
Claim 1 requires clusters of sensor elements with one
gate line and one data line associated with each cluster, and
a sensor element in a cluster including a switch for
discharging into another sensor element in the cluster. The
examiner asserts (Answer, pages 4-5) that Street meets each of
these limitations. Appellant, on the other hand, contends
(Brief, pages 5-6) that Street fails to meet any of the
limitations. We agree with appellant.1
Although the examiner lists APA in the statement of the rejection, APA1
is primarily a description of Street and, therefore, adds nothing thereto.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007