Appeal No. 1999-1800
Application No. 08/752,667
page 5), each element in Street discharges directly to the
data line. Street does not switch charge between elements.
Therefore, Street again does not meet the claimed limitation.
In view of the deficiencies of Street and the lack of evidence
or explanation by the examiner to overcome such deficiencies,
we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 1 nor the claims
which depend therefrom, claims 2 through 12.
Each of claims 13 and 19 recites an array of pixels,
wherein each pixel constitutes a plurality of sub-pixels.
Also, each pixel is addressed by a single gate line and a
single (or, for claim 19, common) data line. Thus, the sub-
pixels are equivalent to claim 1's sensors, and the pixels are
equivalent to claim 1's clusters. As we have explained above,
Street addresses each pixel with a gate and a data line, and
Street shows no further subdivisions of the pixels.
Therefore, Street is deficient for the same reasons described
above.
Further, claim 13 recites that a sub-pixel translates
charge to another sub-pixel (of the same pixel). Similarly
claim 19 recites that plural sub-pixels (of a pixel) translate
charge to the data line through one sub-pixel of the same
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007