Appeal No. 96-0882
Application No. 07/885,217
Thus, we interpret claim 12's reducing step as satisfied by
selecting a writing dot having a dimension that inherently limits
visible dot overlap in the slow scan or the fast scan direction.
This interpretation is consistent with the specification.
The specification states that prior art writing dot dimensions
had been selected to be large enough to provide overlap in both
the fast scan and slow scan direction. Specification at 2, lines
9-13 and at 5, line 36 through 6, line 6. Appellants’ invention
involves selecting a smaller dimension in the slow scan direction
in order to limit overlap in that direction. Specification at 6,
lines 7-9.
Saito selects writing dot dimensions for which overlap is
limited in both. Saito’s writing dot has a diameter that results
in printed dots that do not overlap each other. Figure 6 shows
that none of the printed dots on scan line 50 overlap each other.
Thus, the reducing step is disclosed by Saito.
For similar reasons, Claim 13's elongating and
foreshortening step is satisfied by Saito.
By holding the writing dot’s x dimension to a sufficiently
short value and by adjusting the spot dimension in the y
direction, Saito employs a rectangular writing dot that is
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007