Ex parte Inuzuka et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 20, 1998

08003448 (B.P.A.I. May. 20, 1998)

Application for patent filed January 12, 1993. According1
to the appellants, this application is a division of Application
07/472,306, filed January 30, 1990, now U.S. Patent No.
5,206,635, issued April 27, 1993.
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1)
was not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is not
binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 28
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte TATSUHIRO INUZUKA, HIROYUKI MANO,
KAZUHIRO FUJISAWA, SATOSHI KONUMA,
KIYOSHIGE KINUGAWA AND SATORU TSUNEKAWA
_____________
Appeal No. 95-3408
Application 08/003,4481
______________
HEARD: May 6, 1998
_______________
Before THOMAS, JERRY SMITH and BARRETT, Administrative Patent
Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal No. 95-3408
Application 08/003,448
2
Appellants have appealed to the Board from the examiner’s
final rejection of claims 16 to 22. Since the examiner indicated
the allowability of claims 16 to 18 at page 2 of the answer, only
claims 19 to 22 remain on appeal.
Pertinent portions of independent claim 19 on appeal are
recited below:
means for dividing said stored multi-level tone display data
into N kinds of data, where N is an integer of at least 2;
a data driver for outputting N kinds of multi-level tone
display data signals for one row during said one horizontal
scanning period of one frame in accordance with said divided N
kinds of display data.
Independent claim 21 reflects similar language in slightly
different words where N is an integer of more than two.
The following reference is relied on by the examiner:
Barbier et al. (Barbier) 5,053,764 Oct. 1, 1991
(Filed Oct. 3, 1988)
Claims 19 to 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Barbier.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and the
examiner, reference is made to the briefs and the answers for the
respective details thereof.
Appeal No. 95-3408
Application 08/003,448
3
OPINION
We reverse this rejection.
The above noted language reflects the disclosed feature that
the data select signal 19 alternates between high and low
positions each half of the horizontal period in accordance with
the pulse clock 10 having a frequency twice that of the line
clock 9 wherein N = 2 in accordance with the operation of circuit
figure 9. Stated differently, the processing provided for the
multi-level tone display data common to claims 19 and 20 is that
it is divided into at least two portions and all of the divided
data are provided in one horizontal period of one frame to the
liquid crystal display panel of claim 19 or the multi-level tone
display means at the end of claim 21 on appeal.
On the other hand, the examiner’s position at the bottom of
page 3 of the answer indicates that Barbier requires two complete
scans of the matrix display to completely apply the two kinds of
multi-level display data to the display device in this reference.
We are in agreement with appellants’ characterization at page 4
of the reply brief that Barbier’s system provides the divided
data to a matrix panel in alternate frames. The abstract
indicates that the memory planes in Fig. 2 are read sequentially.
Appeal No. 95-3408
Application 08/003,448
4
The discussion in the first half of column 3 of Barbier indicates
as well that it takes two successive scans or two successive
image scans to properly display the information. We note also
that col. 2, lines 39 through 43 indicate from the brief
description of Figs. 3 and 4 that it takes two successive image
scans to
alternately extract from the memory information relating to
successive pixels of an image to be displayed.
Thus, in the context of the language of claims 19 and 21 on
appeal it would appear that Barbier’s teachings fail to fulfill
the limitation that at least two kinds of divided data are
supplied for one row during one horizontal scanning of one frame.
In Barbier, there are two successive image scans whereas the
claims on appeal require at least two data kinds per single image
scan.
Appeal No. 95-3408
Application 08/003,448
5
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the examiner
rejecting independent claims 19 and 21, and thus their respective
dependent claims 20 and 22, must be reversed. Therefore, the
decision of the examiner rejecting claims 19 to 22 under 35
U.S.C. § 102 is reversed.
REVERSED
)
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge )

Appeal No. 95-3408
Application 08/003,448
6
Antonelli, Terry, Stout & Kraus
1300 North Seventeenth Street
Suite 1800
Arlington, VA 22209