Appeal No. 96-0113
Application 07/848,779
References Relied on by the Examiner
Daly et al. (Daly) 4,780,761 Oct. 25, 1988
Sullivan et al. (Sullivan '501) 4,920,501 Apr. 24, 1990
Parker et al. (Parker) 5,111,310 May 5, 1992
Sullivan et al. (Sullivan '517) 5,214,517 May 25, 1993
The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 2-4, 12-14 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite (Paper No. 13).
Claims 1-7 and 11-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
being anticipated by Sullivan '501 (Paper No. 13).
Claims 1-7 and 11-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Daly or Sullivan '517, in view of Parker
(Paper No. 13). The appellant erroneously indicates in his brief
that claim 8 also stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Instead, claim 8 has merely been objected to as being dependent
on rejected claim (Paper No. 13).
The Invention
The invention is directed to a digital image processing
method and apparatus for halftoning, i.e., simulating a
continuous tone image by patterns of dots and no dots which the
eye perceives as a representation of a certain gray-scale level.
Each pattern corresponds to one density level, and the set of
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007