Ex Parte ROSENBERG et al - Page 2




            Appeal No. 2001-1860                                                                              
            Application No. 08/993,104                                                                        

                                               BACKGROUND                                                     
                   The invention is directed to a voltage signal modulation scheme which may be               
            used in a liquid crystal display (LCD) device.  Representative claim 1 is reproduced              
            below.                                                                                            
                   1.    A circuit for modulating voltage signals comprising:                                 
                         a first circuit configuration to substantially simultaneously and                    
                   asynchronously drive respective positive and negative voltage signals onto                 
                   respective voltage signal storage elements;                                                
                         and a second circuit configuration to alternatively sample the respective            
                   voltage signals of the respective voltage signal storage elements at a                     
                   substantially predetermined rate.                                                          
                   The examiner relies on the following references:                                           
            Shields                                4,870,396                 Sep. 26, 1989                    
            Takahara et al. (Takahara)             5,436,635                 Jul.   25, 1995                  
                   Claims 1-14 and 16-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,              
            as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject        
            matter which applicants regard as the invention.1                                                 
                   Claims 1-14 and 16-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being                        
            unpatentable over Takahara and Shields.                                                           





                   1 The examiner’s failure to list claims 21 and 23 in the statement of the rejection under 35 U.S.C.
            § 112, second paragraph is an apparent oversight, since each claim incorporates the limitations of a
            rejected base claim.                                                                              
                                                     -2-                                                      





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007