Appeal No. 2005-1997 Page 11
Application No. 09/493,319
pixels "would arguably result in more cost and complexity in Nakajima's device, as each
memory 22 would serve more than one pixel." (Appeal Br. at 9.) Agreeing with the
examiner's finding that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
combine teachings of Nakajima and Nishida, we affirm the obviousness rejection of
claim 50 and of claims 51, 52, and 54, which fall therewith.
B. CLAIMS 45-48 AND 53
The appellant stipulates that claims 45-48 and 53 "can be grouped together. With
this grouping, all claims of a particular group stand or fall together." (Appeal Br. at 6.)
We select claim 45 from the group as representative of the claims therein.
The examiner makes the following assertions.
[O]ne in the art combining Nakajima with Nishida would locate the memory
as close to the associated pixel elements as possible to minimize any
space taking lead lines with their associated resistance and capacitance.
One in the art would also locate the memory generally center of the pixel
elements so that all pixel elements are equal distance
from the memory to reduce any variation of capacitance and resistance
associated with different length lead lines.
(Examiner's Answer at 4-5.) The appellant argues that "the Examiner fails to show why
locating a memory buffer closer to an associated group of pixel cells than another group
of pixel cells necessarily flows from the teachings of either Nakajima or Nishida." (Reply
Br. at 3.)
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007