Appeal No. 1999-1993
Application No. 08/385,702
in support of the rejections, and to the appellants’ brief (Paper No. 10, filed Nov. 24, 1998)
and reply brief (Paper No. 13, filed Mar. 26, 1999) for the appellants’ arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The examiner maintains that Hartmann teaches the use of first and second select
pulses having polarities opposite each other. (See answer at page 6.) The examiner
further maintains that appellants agree that Hartmann teaches this feature of the claimed
invention. We agree with the examiner. The examiner maintains that the signals in
Hartmann are related to the threshold levels of the display. (See answer at page 6 and
Hartmann at columns 3 and 4.) We agree with the examiner.
Furthermore, Hartmann also teaches that the switching of the ferro-electric display
elements also depends on amplitude of the signals. (See Hartmann at col 4.) While it is
clear to us that there would necessarily be both a high and a low threshold in Hartman, the
examiner relies on the teachings of Hiroki to more clearly teach the use of selection signals
at both the low and high thresholds when the liquid crystal material
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007