Appeal No. 2006-1726
Application No. 09/725,849
by the Miwa reference, as applied by the Examiner.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the
particular art would have not suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art the invention as set forth in claims 2, 3, 6 and 7.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 2, 3, 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
III. Under 35 USC 103, is the Rejection of Claim 18 as
Being Unpatentable over the combination of Takahashi and Kubota
Proper?
With respect to independent claim 18, Appellants argue at
pages 10 and 11 of the Appeal Brief that Takahashi does not teach
a gate driver including a plurality of gate driver circuits
connected together in series, wherein a gate pulse signal, issued
by the gate driver for charging the pixel element, having at
least two gate pulses within a one frame interval. Appellants
further argue that Kubota does not cure these deficiencies.
Additionally, Appellants argue that there is no evidence of a
motivation to combine Kubota’s teaching of the gate driver with
Takahashi’s teaching to yield Appellants’ claimed invention.
12
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007