Appeal No. 96-0882
Application No. 07/885,217
19. However, we find that the use of Saito’s drum satisfies the
recited step of scanning the writing dot over a recording media
to produce pixels directly on the recording media. Saito scans
his writing dot over a recording surface such as an electro-
photographic material or a photo sensitive film. Column 3, lines
5-10. This scanning produces pixels directly on the recording
surface as recited. Column 3, lines 45-52. Thus, Appellants’
description of Saito as having a drum charged to pick up ink for
transfer onto a receiver substrate is inaccurate. Moreover, the
claims would be satisfied by such a system anyway because it
would charge a drum recording surface with pixel data to create a
charge pattern of pixels directly on the scanning drum surface.
Appellants also criticize Saito as teaching changing the
shape and size of the beam as a function of image content (Br. at
20). However, the claims do not preclude changing the dimension
of the writing beam as a function of image content. Even if they
did, the claim language would be satisified because the maximum
beam diameter, which is independent of image content, produces
pixels k 4 which do not overlap in the fast scan direction (Fig.
6).
Thus, we sustain the rejection of Claims 12 and 13 under 35
U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Saito.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007