Appeal 2007-0961
Application 10/264,131
receiving element Re, amplifier A, and shaping circuit M (e.g., Fig. 5). The
Examiner further finds that the driver circuit as claimed reads on transistor
Tr, which drives image element P. (Answer 3-4.)
Appellants admit that Daniel teaches a pulse density capture circuit to
superimpose information on a pre-existing image (Reply Br. 11), consistent
with the claimed second or “another” pulse density capture circuit.
Appellants contend, however, that the reference fails to describe a pulse
density circuit for temporarily capturing display information. According to
Appellants, the information received by circuit X from the decoupling
circuits comes from electrodes L and C, the information originating from
peripheral control circuits. (Reply Br. 12.)
Instant claim 9, however, does not specify the source of the “display
information”; nor, for that matter, does the claim specify the source of the
“annotation information.” We are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s
finding that the decoupling circuits described by Daniel correspond to pulse
density capture circuits for temporarily capturing display information.3
Display information for a particular image element P is received from the
decoupling circuits, in addition to annotation information received through
receiver Re.
Appellants also seem to place great emphasis, in the briefs, on
“temporarily” capturing display and annotation information. Appellants do
not explain, however, how the adverb might be thought to distinguish over
Daniel. The image, and thus the information captured for displaying the
3 What a reference teaches is a question of fact. In re Baird, 16 F.3d 380,
382, 29 USPQ2d 1550, 1552 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309,
1311, 24 USPQ2d 1040, 1041 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013