Appeal No. 96-0113
Application 07/848,779
computational efficiency.
In light of the pertinent nature of the Rule 132 affidavit,
which was submitted together with the appeal brief and was
entered into the file as Paper No. 17, the absence of discussion
by the examiner with respect to the affidavit cannot be excused.
The examiner made no statement concerning this affidavit or any
indication that the affidavit has been considered. If the
examiner has considered the affidavit, he has not made known his
positions with regard to the points made in the affidavit.
Moreover, to the extent the examiner based his determination
on the thought that because simultaneous generation provides the
same result as non-simultaneous generation, it would have been
obvious to employ simultaneous generation, it does not
sufficiently account for the necessary motivation to do tasks
differently. The examiner has not provided sufficient evidence
to demonstrate that simultaneous generation of bit patterns used
for halftone imaging or a similar technology was an available
option readily appreciated by one with ordinary skill in the art.
In any event, the Rule 132 affidavit appears to indicate
otherwise and the examiner has not addressed the Rule 132
affidavit.
For all of the foregoing reasons, the obviousness rejection
-20-
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007