Ex Parte Stavely et al - Page 6

                Appeal 2007-0831                                                                               
                Application 10/417,656                                                                         

                      Appellants’ argument (Reply Br. 3) that “Ranganathan explicitly                          
                identifies that the implications of pixel reduction are a problem in the                       
                Background of the Invention section of the patent, and then goes on to                         
                describe a solution that does not suffer from that problem” is without merit                   
                because it is abundantly clear from the rejection that the Examiner is relying                 
                solely on the admitted prior art in Ranganathan.  As indicated supra, all of                   
                the disclosures in a reference must be fairly evaluated for what they would                    
                have suggested to the skilled artisan.  If power reduction at the display is the               
                primary goal, then the skilled artisan would have known from the admitted                      
                prior art in Ranganathan to use pixel reduction.  On the other hand, if higher                 
                resolution is the primary goal, then the skilled artisan would have known to                   
                avoid the admitted prior art approach taught by Ranganathan because pixel                      
                reduction would reduce the resolution of the display.  In any event,                           
                Appellants’ argument (Reply Br. 3 and 4) that Ranganathan “expressly                           
                teaches away from the pixel reduction” is without merit in view of the                         
                teachings found in the Background of the Invention in Ranganathan.  Based                      
                upon the teachings in the Background of Ranganathan, a font of reduced size                    
                in the whole display requires fewer active pixels than a full-sized font                       
                previously presented in the whole display.  Displaying the “whole image” in                    
                reduced-pixel form does not require more than only reducing the size of                        
                some discrete text, as argued by Appellants  (Reply Br. 5).                                    
                      With respect to Appellants’ argument (Reply Br. 4 and 5) that “the                       
                Examiner is not giving weight to the plain and ordinary meaning of                             
                Applicant’s claims as interpreted by Applicant’s Specification, which clearly                  
                describes and illustrates what such pixel reduction comprises,” we hereby                      


                                                      6                                                        

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013