Appeal 2007-0961
Application 10/264,131
As we do not find the Daniel reference to lack in the requisite
teachings as alleged by Appellants, we are not persuaded of error in the
rejection of the claims.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, and 14 -- § 103(a) over Sandbank and Lys
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 7, and 14 under
35 U.S.C § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sandbank and Lys. Sandbank
describes image-intensifying screens such as a back (or front) projection
screen 1 (Fig. 1) with a repetitive pattern of RGB phosphor areas addressed
by the scanning beam 2 of a laser light source 3. Sandbank also describes an
image intensifying screen 1 (Figs. 2 and 3) having an array of cells 7, each
cell comprising a thin film phototransistor 9 and associated
electroluminescent emitter 8, which produce a light output in response to
incident radiation.
The statement of the rejection (Answer 4-5), however, alleges that
Sandbank teaches a plurality of pulse density capture circuits, each one of
the circuits (as depicted in Fig. 4 of Sandbank) for receiving a pulse train
signal indicative of a desired brightness related to driving emitters on and off
at a determined duty cycle to produce the desired brightness or intensity.
We do not find any disclosure or suggestion of what the rejection attributes
to Sandbank in the cited portions of the reference, nor in any other part of
the reference. We further do not find any teachings of an apparatus relating
to a sufficient duty cycle to cause light emitter means to produce a plurality
of shades of light (independent claim 6) or to driving a cell on and off at a
determined duty cycle rate to generate the desired brightness or hue
(independent claim 14), each of which the rejection appears to hold is
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013