Appeal No. 1998-2570
Application No. 08/381,156
change in bit value (e.g. the “OFF” period after region 306b
in Figure 3 representing a bit value change from a “1” to a
“0”).
We agree with Appellant that this disclosed operation of
Sampsell does not meet the requirements set forth in step (b)
of claim 15 when it is read in conjunction with step (a) of
the claim. In our view, the limitations of appealed claim 15
require the returning of the micromirrors to their original
position during the processing of each bit position. In other
words, if a micromirror is moved to an “ON” position during
the processing of the least significant bit having a value of
“1”, the micromirror will then be returned to the “OFF”
position during the processing of this same least significant
bit and regardless of the bit value of the next bit. This is
unlike the operation described in Sampsell in which the
micromirrors are returned to their original position only if
the bit value changes from one bit position to the next.
In view of the above discussion, it is our opinion that,
since all of the claim limitations are not present in the
disclosure of Sampsell, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of independent claim 15, nor of
claims 16 and 17 dependent thereon.
Lastly, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claims 18 and 19 which add the previously
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007