Appeal No. 1999-0301
Application No. 08/156,541
and 25 do not set forth or imply an ordering of the “at least two bits.” Furthermore, it is
clear from appellants’ specification what is meant by the language in question. For
example, with respect to claims 21 and 24, appellants’ specification shows that a first bit
44 in Figure 3 is decreased in duration to the size of bit 52 in Figure 4, and that a second
more significant bit 42 in Figure 3 is increased in duration to the size of bit 50 in Figure 4.
The Rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
Claims 15 and 23
After consideration of the positions and arguments presented by both the examiner
and the appellants, we have concluded that the rejection should not be sustained.
We agree with appellants that Kohgami does not teach or suggest “oppositely
altering the display duration of at least two said bits” as recited in claim 15 or “oppositely
adjusting said bit display duration” as recited by claim 23. In the above terms, the bit
display durations require the display duration of one bit to be lengthened while the display
duration of another bit is shortened. Kohgami’s teaches at column 9, lines 17-63,
reordering the order in which the data bits are displayed and splitting longer bits into two
segments. However, neither disclosure is a teaching or suggestion of “oppositely altering”
or “oppositely adjusting” the bit periods as recited in the above claims.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007