Appeal 2007-0961
Application 10/264,131
image, is not permanent in the reference. Indeed, the image can be erased.
Daniel 6:1-2.
We have considered all of Appellants’ arguments in response to the
rejection of claim 9 over Daniel, but are not persuaded that the finding of
anticipation is in error. We sustain the rejection of claim 9. Claim 11 falls
with claim 9, as Appellants rely on substantially the same arguments for that
claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Claims 1-8 and 14 -- § 103(a) over Daniel and Lys
Instant claim 1 stands rejected under § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Daniel and Lys. The rejection asserts that Daniel fails to disclose a “digital”
circuit, and relies on Lys for such a teaching. We have studied Daniel,
however, and do not find where the reference teaches pulse density capture
circuits for receiving a pulse train signal indicative of a desired brightness or
hue and for responding to an individual associated one of control circuits to
facilitate driving an individual associated one of the emitters on and off at a
determined duty cycle to produce the desired brightness or hue. The
rejection (Answer 6) cites to multiple portions of Daniel for the teaching of
the pulse density capture circuits, apparently adding Lys merely for the
teaching of pulse density capture “digital” circuits. The rejection does not
specify where in the cited portions of Daniel a plurality of pulse density
capture circuits as claimed may be found.
Daniel describes the invention as covering “all types of display
technologies with matrix addressing” (Daniel 3:23-25), such that an image
element P is situated at the intersection of a line and a column electrode.
The reference does not appear to describe a display type where circuits
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013