Appeal No. 96-0882
Application No. 07/885,217
permits more pixels per linear inch, and thus greater resolution,
than in the one direction.
Umeda satisfies Claim 14 because he uses a light beam
writing spot that has a larger dimension in the second scan
direction (main scanning direction) than in the first
(subscanning direction). Column 7, line 62 through column 8,
line 2; column 9, line 68 through column 10, line 4; and column
10, lines 32-34. This is the same direction (the main scanning
direction) in which Appellants’ pixel has a larger dimension and
thus lesser resolution. Specification at 4, lines 6-8.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of Claim 14.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of Claims 1-5 and 12-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102
as anticipated by Gale is not sustained. The rejection of Claims
12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Saito is
sustained. The rejection of Claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 as anticipated by Umeda is sustained.
14
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007