Appeal No. 2006-1605
Application No. 09/470,741
12, 16-19, 21-24, 28-30 and 32-34. Accordingly, we will sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-7, 9, 11-12, 16-19, 21-24,
28-30 and 32-34.
II. Under 35 USC 103, is the Rejection of Claims 8 and 31
as Being Unpatentable over the combination of Vetro, Ng, Bose and
Kim Proper?
With respect to dependent claims 8 and 31, Appellants argue
at pages 34 and 35 of the Appeal Brief that the Vetro, Ng and
Bose combination is deficient, and it does not teach the claimed
invention, as recited in the independent claims from which claims
8 and 31 directly depend. Appellants also argue that Kim3 does
not cure these deficiencies. As noted in the discussion of claim
1 above, we find that no such deficiencies exist in the
rejection, and that the Vetro, Ng and Bose combination properly
teaches the limitations in question. Consequently, we agree with
the Examiner that the combination of Vetro, Ng, Bose and Kim also
3 Kim is relied upon for its teaching of displaying down-sampled spatial image
such that the resulting non-uniform vertical spacing of data signal lines
15
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007