Appeal No. 95-2827
Application 07/983,211
Appellant has appealed to the Board from the examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1 to 40, which constitute all the
claims in the application.2
The pertinent portion of independent claims 1, 6, and 11
on appeal is the following:
Determining the distance to the nearest
previously generated output pixel to
provide a nearest dot bias value.
Corresponding means language is recited in independent claims
21, 26, and 31 for these apparatus claims. Independent method
claim 16 and corresponding apparatus claim 36 do not
positively recite this feature in the same manner but utilize
“the distance to the nearest previously generated output
pixel” as a basis for the determination recited in the
outputting a screened image clause. 3
2 Appellant filed an amendment on November 25, 1994 at
the same time as the Brief. This amendment apparently has not
been entered by the examiner since no Advisory Action as to it
has been issued and no mention of it has been made in the
Answer itself.
3We note in passing that independent apparatus claims
21, 26, and 36 recite at the end of the preamble of each of
these claims “said apparatus comprising the steps of.” We
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007