Appeal 2007-1283
Application 09/772,477
luminance value (i.e., corresponding to common pixel data) to two lines of a
set of scanning lines (See Wani, col. 6, ll. 32-39; see also Kida, col. 7, ll. 11-
17). Furthermore, the Examiner has combined Wani’s teaching of displaying
subfields corresponding to the least significant four bits using interlace
scanning (col. 3, ll. 49-54) with Kida’s teaching of scanning two rows
simultaneously and shifting the two rows scanned by one row in a first field
and a second field (See Kida, col. 2, ll. 34-39 and 60-67; see also col. 6, l. 64
through col. 7, l. 17). In the absence of a separate argument with respect to
the dependent claims, those claims stand or fall with the representative
independent claim. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089,
1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4 as being
unpatentable over Wani in view of Kida and Huang for the same reasons
discussed supra with respect to independent claim 1.
Dependent claim 6
We consider next the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 6 as
being unpatentable over Wani in view of Kida and Nagai.
Appellants note that Nagi, like Huang, relates to the driving of plasma
display devices. Appellants state that Nagi divides the matrix into first and
second groups of electrodes arranged in parallel with each other, and pairs
electrodes from the two groups. Appellants acknowledge that the prescribed
discharge in Nagai’s electrode pair groups is generated in units of the
electrode pair groups at staggered timing (Br. 11).
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013