Appeal No. 1999-1800
Application No. 08/752,667
The examiner (Answer, page 5) has interpreted each data
line of Street as being associated with a cluster of pixels
because it is connected to an entire row of pixels. Likewise,
the examiner has interpreted each gate line as being
associated with a cluster of pixels because it addresses an
entire column of pixels. However, if, for example, a row of
pixels were considered to be a cluster with a single data line
associated therewith, that cluster would not have a single
gate line also associated with it, as required by the claim.
Instead, that cluster would have plural gate lines associated
with it, as each pixel in the row would be addressed by a
different gate line. In claim 1, though, a single gate line
and a single data line must be associated with the same
cluster. Therefore, Street's rows and columns cannot meet the
claimed clusters.
In addition, as explained above, claim 1 requires a
sensor element in a cluster to discharge into another sensor
element in the cluster. The examiner has completely failed to
address this limitation. As pointed out by appellant (Brief,
Further, the examiner focuses solely on Street. Accordingly, we will limit
our discussion to Street.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007