Appeal No. 1999-1587
Application 08/601,751
Ikeuchi is not connected in parallel with either pseudo-
halftone processing section 4 or bi-level conversion section
6. As pointed out by appellant, for two electronic devices to
be connected in parallel, the devices must be connected to a
common point or device at both the inputs and at the outputs
of the devices. Neural network 17 of Ikeuchi is not connected
in parallel with devices 4 or 6 for reasons explained by
appellant in the briefs. We also agree with appellant that
the claimed combining of output data from two devices is not
met by using one of the outputs to select the other output as
is done in Ikeuchi.
Since we have determined that Ikeuchi does not
disclose every element of the invention as recited in claim 9,
we do not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 9 based on
Ikeuchi.
We now consider the rejection of claims 6-8 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 based on the teachings of Ikeuchi and Kawai.
These claims stand or fall together as a single group [brief,
page 6] so that we will consider independent claim 6 as the
representative claim for this group. In rejecting claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the examiner to
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007