Appeal No. 2002-1042
Application No. 09/262,102
Representative claim 1 is reproduced as follows:
1. A display device comprising a matrix of pixels, in which
each pixel is coupled to a row electrode and a column electrode,
control means comprising first drive means for applying a
selection signal to the row electrodes and second drive means for
applying a data signal to the column electrodes, characterized in
that the control means comprises user adjustable means for
adjusting different drive modes of the device to set a viewing
angle at which a given contrast ratio is observable, said user
adjustable means comprising means for adjusting different voltage
ranges across a pixel during said different drive modes of the
display device.
The examiner relies on the following reference:
Ikezaki et al. (IBM) EP 0 514 033 Nov. 19, 1992
Claims 1-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). As
evidence of obviousness the examiner offers IBM taken alone.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the
examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal,
the rejection advanced by the examiner and the evidence of
obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support for the
rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellants’
arguments set forth in the briefs along with the examiner’s
-2–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007