Appeal No. 1999-1587
Application 08/601,751
730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.); cert.
dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984); W.L. Gore and Associates,
Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ 303, 313
(Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
The examiner indicates how he reads claim 9 on the
disclosure of Ikeuchi [answer, pages 3-4]. Appellant argues
that 1) neither pseudo-halftone processing section 4 nor bi-
level
conversion section 6 of Ikeuchi can be considered to be a
“conventional filter” as recited in claim 9; 2) neural network
17 of Ikeuchi is not connected in parallel with either
processing section 4 or conversion section 6; and 3) the
output of neural network 17 in Ikeuchi is not “combined” with
the outputs of sections 4 or 6 in data selector 5 as recited
in claim 9 [brief, pages 6-11]. The examiner responds that in
his view the disclosure of Ikeuchi meets the broadest
reasonable interpretation of claim 9 [answer, pages 6-8].
We agree with the position argued by appellant for
essentially the reasons set forth in the briefs. Most
importantly, we agree with appellant that neural network 17 of
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007