Appeal No. 2004-0045
Application No. 09/044,421
individual basis with an electric field of a reverse polarity and
of a same magnitude as that applied to the respective individual
pixel during the display scan.
We further agree with Appellants (Reply Brief, page 7) that
for the Examiner’s asserted correspondence of the disclosure of
Kanbe to the claimed invention to be correct, all pixels in a line
would have to show the same display. As asserted by Appellants,
such a scenario would result in an impractical blank screen display
and one which is at odds with Kanbe’s own disclosure (e.g, Figure
11A) which describes pixels in a line having different values.
It is apparent to us that the only reasonable interpretation
of the language of the claims before us requires a “pixel-by-pixel”
erasing scan procedure, a concept not taught or suggested in Kanbe,
nor in Hunter for that matter. It is also apparent from the
Examiner’s line of reasoning in the Answer that, since the Examiner
has mistakenly interpreted the disclosure of Kanbe as disclosing
the “pixel-by-pixel” erasing scan feature, the issue of the
obviousness of this feature has not been addressed. In our view,
the Examiner’s implication that Kanbe’s line-by-line erasing scan
procedure is somehow equivalent to that required by Appellants’
claims can only be supported by an unreasonable interpretation of
the language of the appealed claims.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007