Appeal No. 96-0113
Application 07/848,779
except the simultaneous function have been conceded by the
appellant, the several findings made by the examiner as to the
"simultaneous generation" feature for the correlated bit patterns
are erroneous. In the answer at 6, the examiner stated:
Sullivan et al further disclose at column 6 lines 6-11
that "A computer program, written in the fortran
program language, for performing the above steps is
included in Appendix A. This program was executed on a
CRAYII TM super computer to produce a set of 256
minimum visual noise binary bit patterns, corresponding
to 256 density levels." Sullivan et al clear[ly]
disclose the "simultaneously" function as recited in
the claims.
Furthermore, on page 7 of the answer, the examiner stated:
The prior art Sullivan et al '501 show in figures 3, 6,
and 8 the simultaneously function as relied by the
appellant. Sullivan et al '501 also disclose the use
of CRAYII TM super computer to produce a set of 256
minimum visual noise binary patterns, which is the same
as the super computer as disclosed by the appellant.
Accordingly, the claims are not patentable over
Sullivan et al '501.
The appellant is correct that the examiner's reading of the
figures of Sullivan '501 is wrong and that the examiner has
confused generation of the stored bit patterns with the making
use of those stored bit patterns to generate a halftone image.
As is correctly noted by the appellant in the reply brief at 2:
Figures 6 and 8 show the halftone image processing
technique using the halftone bit patterns, they do not
show the bit patterns being generated simultaneously
(Figure 3 is a graph showing the human visual response
function). As described at Col. 6, line 33, the
-13-
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007