Appeal No. 1998-2570
Application No. 08/381,156
1554, 220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469
U.S. 851 (1984).
With respect to independent claim 15, the Examiner
attempts to read the claimed limitations on the disclosure of
Sampsell. In particular, the Examiner points to Sampsell’s
description at column 8, line 3 to column 9, line 12 of the
operation illustrated in Figure 3 as disclosing the claimed
mirror positioning feature.
After reviewing Appellant's arguments in response (Brief,
pages 10 and 11), we are in agreement with Appellants’
position as stated in the Brief. Our interpretation of the
disclosure of Sampsell coincides with that of Appellant, i.e.
Sampsell’s micromirrors are returned to their original
positions only when there is a change in bit value from one
bit to the next. As pointed out by Appellant, if the bit
values in Sampsell stay at the same level, the micromirrors
will stay in the same position as the processing continues
from a lesser significant bit to the next lesser significant
bit (e.g. region 306b illustrated in Sampsell’s Figure 3).
Sampsell’s micromirrors are returned to their original
position only when the next lesser significant bit has a
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007