Appeal No. 2002-0328
Application No. 09/250,324
number of sub-arrays addressed within a pre-determined maximum”
(answer, page 13).
A review of Hughes shows that the reference is concerned
with driving a liquid crystal display device by a strobe signal
which is applied to a plurality of row electrodes and by applying
data signals to a plurality of column electrodes (abstract).
Hughes controls the interaction between the strobe signal and the
data signals to ensure that those pixels which are required to be
switched are switched whereas those pixels which are required to
stay the same do not change (col. 2, lines 25-37). Therefore, as
correctly identified by Appellants, based on the strobe signal,
Hughes multiplexes the column data, not the image data in the
sub-arrays. Additionally, the Examiner has pointed to no
teaching in the prior art as the evidence in support of the
rejection, nor do we find any, that would have suggested to one
of ordinary skill in the art to modify the row and column image
processing of Hughes to limit the multiplexing of the image data
to multiple sub-arrays to a pre-determined maximum. As the
Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness, we cannot sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claim 43 over Hughes.
With regard to the rejection of claim 44, Appellants merely
argue that this claim should not be rejected since the base claim
15
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007