Appeal No. 2004-1675
Application No. 09/638,214
3) Claims 19, 27 and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over the combined disclosures of Yuyama and Nakamura; and
4) Claims 20, 21, 28, 29, 36 and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Yuyama and Asai.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and prior
art, including all of the arguments advanced by both the examiner
and the appellants in support of their respective positions. This
review has led us to conclude that the examiner’s Sections 102(e)
and 103(a) rejections are not well founded. Accordingly, we shall
not sustain the examiner’s Sections 102 (e) and 103(a) rejections
for those reasons articulated by the appellants in their Brief and
Reply Brief. We add the following primarily for emphasis.
The examiner finds (the Answer, pages 3-9), and the appellants
do not dispute (the Brief, pages 7-16 and the Reply Brief, pages 1-
7), that Yuyama describes a self-luminous display element driving
device having the claimed driving circuit, voltage generating
circuit and constant-current driving circuit. The appellants,
however, disagree with the examiner’s determination that Yuyama
teaches the following limitations recited in claims 16, 24 and 32:
a deterioration information generating circuit for
detecting a voltage supplied to the self-luminous display
element and generating deterioration information
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007