Ex parte ABE

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 26, 1999

08242235 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 26, 1999)

Application for patent filed May 13, 1994.1
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not binding precedent of the Board.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. 17
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte HIRONOBU ABE
__________
Appeal No. 1997-0799
Application 08/242,2351
__________
HEARD: November 15, 1999
__________
Before THOMAS, DIXON, and GROSS, Administrative Patent Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant has appealed to the Board from the examiner's
final rejection of claims 1 through 5, which constitute all
the claims pending in the application.
Appeal No. 1997-0799
Application 08/242,235
2
Representative claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A plasma-addressed liquid crystal display device,
comprising:
a liquid crystal cell having a plurality of data
electrodes therein;
a plasma cell associated with the liquid crystal cell and
having a plurality of discharge channels with discharge
electrodes, the liquid crystal cell and the plasma cell being
disposed spaced-apart with the direction of the discharge
channels transverse to that of the data electrodes and spaced
from each other:
a scanning circuit operable to control an application of
discharge pulses to said discharge electrodes in the discharge
channels by a row scan operation; and
a driving circuit provided to apply data voltages to the
respective data electrodes,
wherein said driving circuit includes means for
substantially eliminating an increase in voltage between said
discharge electrodes and said data electrodes during the
application of the discharge pulse.
The following references are relied on by the examiner:
Buzak et al. (Buzak) 5,313,223 May 17, 1994
(filed Aug. 26, 1992)
Iwama 5,349,454 Sep. 20, 1994
(filed Apr. 22, 1993)
Appeal No. 1997-0799
Application 08/242,235
There appears to be no antecedent basis for the language "said controlling2
means” of dependent claims 2 through 4 in parent claim 1. However, what appears to be
intended is that
the language of the driving circuit including a means for substantially eliminating an
increase should be recited in
claim 1 to indicate that the driving circuit includes a means
for controlling or a controlling means since the features recited in dependent claims 2
through 4 clearly relate to the modified aspects of the driving circuit referred to at the end
of claim 1 on appeal.
3
Claims 1 through 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
As evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies upon Buzak in
view of Iwama.2
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellant and the
examiner, reference is made to the briefs and the answer for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We reverse.
Appellant's Background of the Invention in the early
pages of the specification as filed as well as the initial
teachings and showings in both references relied upon indicate
that the structure recited in independent claim 1 on appeal
excluding the wherein clause was well known in the art. More
Appeal No. 1997-0799
Application 08/242,235
4
specifically, the noted wherein clause recites "said driving
circuit includes means for substantially eliminating an
increase in voltage between said discharge electrodes and said
data electrodes during the application of the discharge
pulse."
It is clear from the claimed and disclosed invention that
the claimed discharge electrodes relate to the anode and
cathode of the claimed plasma cell and the claimed data
electrodes relate to the data electrodes of the liquid crystal
cell. There is recited in this wherein clause a structural
relationship among the recited elements in the context of the
included means for substantially eliminating an increase in
the voltage between the recited electrodes during the
application of a discharge pulse. Thus, the claim is more
specifically concerned with the relationship of the voltages
between the electrodes of the plasma cell and the electrodes
of the liquid crystal cell rather than among the electrodes of
any one of these cells.
Although both references are concerned about the voltage
levels present within the overall display element as a whole,
Appeal No. 1997-0799
Application 08/242,235
5
Buzak focusses upon the relationship of the voltage levels
between adjacent electrodes within the plasma cell rather than
the relationship of electrodes from the plasma cell to
electrodes of the liquid crystal cell. The examiner's
position at the top of page 3 of the answer recognizes that
Buzak does not teach the driving circuit as recited in the
wherein clause at the end of claim 1 on appeal. Assuming for
the sake of argument that it would have been obvious for the
artisan to have combined the teachings of Iwama and Buzak,
Iwama teaches simultaneously inverting an image signal, the
anode potential and the drive voltage for the data signals.
To the extent the examiner may be possibly correct in
asserting that these teachings relate to substantially
eliminating an increase in voltage between the discharge
electrodes and the data electrodes, the reference Iwama does
not address changing the potentials during the application of
a discharge pulse which is required as well in the wherein
clause of claim 1 on appeal. Therefore, inasmuch as both
references fail to address the specific timing and voltage
Appeal No. 1997-0799
Application 08/242,235
6
relationships required by the claim, the rejection must be
reversed.
Appeal No. 1997-0799
Application 08/242,235
7
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the examiner
rejecting claims 1 through 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
reversed.
REVERSED
)
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF
PATENT
JOSEPH L. DIXON )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 1997-0799
Application 08/242,235
8
JDT/dem
Appeal No. 1997-0799
Application 08/242,235
9
Hill, Steadman & Simpson
85th Floor Sears Tower
Chicago, IL 60606