Appeal 2007-1283
Application 09/772,477
the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 as being unpatentable over
Wani in view of Kida.
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii), we have decided the appeal
with respect to the remaining claims in this group on the basis of the selected
claim alone. Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims
2, 3, 5, and 8 as being unpatentable over Wani in view of Kida for the same
reasons discussed supra with respect to representative claim 1.
Dependent claim 4
We consider next the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 4 as
being unpatentable over Wani in view of Kida and Huang.
Appellants argue that Huang does not teach or suggest applying a
common luminance value to lines of a set of scanning lines of at least one of
the least significant subfields, as claimed by Appellants’ claim 1. Thus,
Appellants contend that Huang adds no teachings to the combination of
Wani and Kida which are relevant to the claimed invention. Therefore,
Appellants conclude that claim 4, which further restricts the scope of
claim 1, is patentable over the combination of Wani, Kida and Huang (Br.
10-11).
We note that Appellants have not presented any substantive
arguments directed to the separate patentability of dependent claim 4 (See
Br. 10-11). As discussed supra, we find no deficiencies in Wani and Kida
with respect to independent claim 1, from which claim 4 depends. In
particular, we find that Wani and Kida each teach scanning two horizontal
rows simultaneously in a manner that necessarily applies a common
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013