Appeal 2007-1283
Application 09/772,477
The Examiner disagrees. In response to Appellants’ argument that the
combination of Wani and Kida would result in a loss of resolution and/or
sharpness, the Examiner finds that Wani teaches partial interlace scanning in
the lower bits [b3, b2, b1, b0] in order to reduce addressing time (See Wani,
col. 3, ll. 44-58). The Examiner finds that Kida teaches addressing bits
within the subframes, wherein neighboring lines are assigned the same
luminance value in order to reduce the addressing time (See Kida, col. 2, ll.
34-39 and 60-67; see also col. 6, l. 64 through col. 7, l. 17). Therefore, the
Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to an artisan to modify
Wani’s system (which teaches reducing addressing time by performing
interlace scanning only in subfields corresponding to the lower bits that have
a short sustain time and small contribution to display brightness)1 with
Kida’s method of addressing neighboring lines with the same luminance
(i.e., the same pixel data, col. 7, ll. 11-13), also for the purpose of reducing
addressing time (see Kida, col. 7, ll. 13-15). The Examiner notes that by
reducing the addressing time the sustaining periods will be increased and the
brightness of the display is also increased (Answer 3-4; see also Final
Action 4).
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the
Examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598
(Fed. Cir. 1988). In so doing, the Examiner must make the factual
determinations set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 148
USPQ 459, 467 (1966). In addition to the findings under Graham, there
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013