Appeal 2006-3013
Application 10/367,849
5). Based upon the current being the same in both the data and the power
line, we do not conclude that one skilled in the art would make the power
lines wider based upon differences in the load on the lines. Thus, we do not
reach the other issues a) and b), as based upon this issue c), we will not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 14, 31, and 32 as unpatentable
over Dingwall in view of Kawaguchi.
NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(B).
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) states:
(b) Should the Board have knowledge of any grounds not involved in
the appeal for rejecting any pending claim, it may include in its
opinion a statement to that effect with its reasons for so holding,
which statement constitutes a new ground of rejection of the claim. A
new ground of rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be
considered final for judicial review.
ANALYSIS
We now enter a new rejection of independent claims 14 and 31 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon Appellant’s admitted prior art of Figure 22 in
view of the well-known sizing of power and data lines. The admitted prior
art of Figure 22 teaches a display which has data and power lines. (Fact 12).
This display is different than Dingwall, however, in that it does not use a
current mirror. Rather, the display of Figure 22 is arranged such that the
only load on the sig line (data line) is the capacitor and transistor (20),
whereas the load on the common (power line) is the capacitor, transistors (20
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013