Appeal No. 2002-0328
Application No. 09/250,324
phosphors (brief, page 33). Appellants further argue that such
arrangement is different from the claimed plurality of distinct
phosphor areas corresponding to a single cathode (id.). In
response, the Examiner merely describes different components of
the cathodoluminescent display of Spindt but fails to identify
the specific parts of the reference that teach the above-noted
claimed features. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 rejection of claims 35 and 40 over Wei, Spindt, Mazurek and
Wakitani.
Turning now to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 43
over Hughes, Appellants point out that the “multiplexing” that is
referred to in Hughes, actually relates to multiplexing of data
in the columns to successively display each row as it is selected
(brief, page 35). Additionally, Appellants argue that the claim
requires that the amount of multiplexing be limited to a
predetermined maximum when the system provides a subset of the
image data to each tile when a new image is updated (id.). The
examiner recognizes the difference and asserts that it would have
been obvious to address sub-arrays instead of one large array, as
disclosed in Hughes (answer, page 9). The Examiner further
concludes that the use of sub-arrays is common in the art wherein
“the entire matrix can be logically defined ..., with an
operational program or appropriate control logic maintaining the
14
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007