Interference No. 103,587
Katayama’s Position
Katayama’s argument in opposition is that its application supports claims 32-41 as
follows.
In highlight regions, the great majority of pixels are white. If the image is processed
using error diffusion alone, black pixels are entirely surrounded by white pixels and ma y be in
small clusters (e.g., two or three black pixels adjacent to each other as in KX-4, which illustrates
an image produced by error diffusion processing of the prior art). When the Katayama invention
is used, the highlight region changes in that small clusters of black pixels are broken up, such
that the black pixels are separated from each other as in KX-5. Katayama concludes that when
the first embodiment (Figs. 1-6) of its application is operating in a low-density highlight region,
black dots are suppressed and separated, thus decreasing the numbers of dots in these sets of
adjacent black dots. When this occurs, the numbers of dots in each of the neighboring sets of
adjacent white dots are also changed. In the converse case, i.e., when the first embodiment is
operating in a high density black region, black dots are caused to be printed and white dots are
separated, thus decreasing the numbers of dots in those sets of adjacent white dots. When this
occurs, the numbers of dots in the sets of adjacent black dots defined between the several white
dots are also changed. It is urged that in either case, the recitation that the “size of the plurality
of dots is determined” is clearly supported by the circuitry of the first embodiment of the
Katayama application because the numbers of dots in the sets of adjacent white or black dots
change as a result of the operation of that circuitry.
Katayama argues that the production of “variable size dots” in its claims 53 and 55 means
the same thing as “determining the size of pluralities of dots” and, therefore, that these claims are
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007