Application No.:
`Amendment Dated:
`Reply to Office Action of:
`
`12/444,616
`October 10, 2012
`July 24, 2012
`
`RemarkslArguments:
`
`MAT—10255US
`
`Claims 1 and 2 are pending and rejected in the application. Claim 1 has been
`
`amended. No new matter has been added.
`
`On page 2, the Office Action rejects claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
`unpatentable over Sasaki
`(US 2005/0212725) in view of Mori
`(US 6,900,781) and
`further in view of Takagi (US 2005/0073476).
`It is respectfully submitted, however,
`
`that the claims are patentable over the art of record for at least the reasons set forth
`
`below.
`
`Applicants' claim 1 includes features which are neither disclosed nor suggested
`
`by the art of record, namely:
`
`. wherein the periodic pattern includes the at
`least one first sustain pulse being alternately
`applied to the scan electrode and the sustain
`electrode
`a
`first
`integer number of
`times,
`consecutively followed by the at least one second
`sustain pulse being applied to the scan electrode
`and the sustain electrode a
`second integer
`number of times which is different than the first
`
`integer number of times
`
`Claim 1 relates to a method for driving a plasma display panel. Specifically, a
`
`periodic pattern of a first sustain pulse for generating emission having one peak and a
`second sustain pulse having two peaks are applied to the scan electrode and sustain
`
`electrode. More specifically, the periodic pattern includes a first integer number of the
`
`first sustain pulse and a second integer number of the second sustain pulse, the M
`
`integer number being different than the second integer number. Support for this
`
`feature can be at least found in Applicants' Fig. 7 and furthermore, described on pages
`
`18 and 19 of Applicants' specification. No new matter has been added.
`
`On page 5, the Office Action cites Fig. 2 of Takagi which shows that pulses 1
`
`the pulses that emit one emission peak and two emission peaks
`and 2 (Le,
`respectively) are applied to the electrodes. The Examiner stated that it would be
`obvious to modify Sasaki’s Fig. 6 to have pulses 47 and 49 periodically applied to the
`
`electrodes.
`
`Page 4 of 6
`
`

`

`Application No.:
`Amendment Dated:
`Reply to Office Action of:
`
`12/444,616
`October 10, 2012
`July 24, 2012
`
`MAT-10255US
`
`However, even if Sasaki’s pulses 47 and 49 were periodically applied as taught
`
`by Takagi, they would not be periodically applied in a pattern pulse 47 and pulse 49
`
`would be applied a different number of times. Specifically, the pattern would be the
`
`same number of repeating pulses 47 and 49 (e.g., Pattern: 47, 49, 47, 49, 47,
`
`49....etc.). Thus, Sasaki’s pulses 47 and 49 will be applied the same number of times
`
`within the repeating pattern (not a different number of times).
`
`Applicants' claim 1 is different than the art of record, because the first and
`
`second sustain pulses are applied in a specific periodic pattern where the number of
`
`first sustain pulses is different than a number of second sustain pulses.
`
`As shown in Applicants' Fig. 7, a first sustain pulse and second sustain pulse
`
`are alternately applied to the scan and sustain electrodes. During each period, a
`
`pattern is produced where the first sustain pulse (i.e., the pulse that emits a single
`
`discharge) is applied five times to the electrodes followed by the second sustain pulse
`
`(i.e., the pulse that emits two discharges) being applied three times to the electrode
`
`(e.g. Pattern:
`
`1st, 15‘, 15‘, 1st, 1“, 2nd, 2“, 2“, ....etc.). Thus, in Applicants' Fig. 7, the
`
`number of first pulses and second pulses are different than each other within each
`
`repeat period (i.e., 5 vs. 3). Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, claim 1 is
`
`patentable over the art of record.
`
`On page 6, the Office Action rejects claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over Sasaki, Mori, Takagi and Kang (US 2004/0021657). Kang is being
`
`relied upon for adjusting the rise time of the sustain pulses and the rise times on the
`
`scan electrodes are longer than the rise times on the sustain electrodes. Kang,
`
`however, does not make up for the deficiencies of Sasaki, Mori and Takagi with respect
`
`to independent claim 1. Thus, dependent claim 2 is also patentable over the art of
`
`record for at least the reasons set forth above.
`
`Page 5 of 6
`
`

`

`Application No.:
`Amendment Dated:
`Reply to Office Action of:
`
`12/444,616
`October 10, 2012
`July 24, 2012
`
`MAT—10255US
`
`In view of
`
`the amendments and arguments set
`
`forth above,
`
`the above-
`
`identified application is
`
`in condition for allowance which action is
`
`respectfully
`
`requested.
`
`
`. ctfully s -
`
`
`
`
`
`Lawrence E'hery, Reg. No. 34,515
`Attorney for Applicants
`
`
`
`RAE/fp
`
`Dated: October 10, 2012
`
`PO. Box 980
`
`Valley Forge, PA 19482
`(610) 407—0700
`
`DWM_1607572
`
`Page 6 of 6
`
`