Appeal No. 1998-1521
Application No. 08/584,990
The examiner contends that Femal's system and the instant
claimed invention both disclose similar interpolation
techniques and that the only difference between the two is in
the type of display employed. Appellants do not deny that
Femal uses a similar interpolation processing technique as the
claimed invention, arguing the obviousness/nonobviousness of
substituting a laser printer for the CRT display of Femal.
Based on only these arguments alone, we would hold for
the examiner because the substitution of one type of display
for another, in general, would appear to be an obvious
modification which is not convincingly rebutted by appellants.
However, appellants do argue, at page 3 of the brief, that
Femal does not disclose the claimed photoreceptive surface or
laser source "in conjunction with other elements of the
claimed invention." While, normally, this would be so general
an argument as to be an argument about only the photoreceptive
surface or laser source, per se, our review of the claimed
subject matter reveals a little more, i.e., there are other
elements of the claimed invention which, when taken together
with the claimed laser light source and photoreceptive
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007