Appeal 2007-0600
Application 09/943,535
the limitations recited in independent claim 1. Therefore, we look to
Appellants’ Briefs to show error in the Examiner’s prima facie case.
Appellants argue that the data analysis means controls the particular
display mode of the multi-format digital data driver based on the determined
color format of the input data itself (Br. 6-7). Here, we find a slight
variation of the argument from the express language of independent claim 1
which states “data analysis means arranged to receive said digital input data,
to determine the color format of the input data, and to control the data driver
to operate in the display mode corresponding to the determined color format
of the input data.” Determining the color format of the input data is different
from determining the color format from the input data. The manner in
which the Examiner interprets independent claim 1 seems to imply that if the
format of the input data is varied, then the format of the input data had to
have been determined (Answer 6-7). In Nishioka, it is the manner of the
determination or what values are used in a calculation or computation upon
which the determination is based upon that is of critical importance.
We find no express limitation in the language of independent claim 1
which expressly limits what the determination is based upon. A
determination of the format of the input data is made in Nishioka. The
determination may be either selected by a user or the system as Appellants
agree (Br. 7-10). Nishioka also teaches automatically selecting the number
of colors as taught in embodiments four through six at columns 21-23.
Therefore, we cannot agree with Appellants that Nishioka does not perform
a determination.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013