Appeal No. 96-0113
Application 07/848,779
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is not ripe for review. A remand is in
order for the examiner to make findings on the differences
between the claimed invention of each claim and the prior art, to
make specific and clear the conclusions he draws and the
rationale he relies on, and to consider and assess the Ray
affidavit filed under 37 CFR § 1.132. And if the examiner will
continue to rely on discussions in the protest, it should be
explained (1) why a single value function would be amenable to
simultaneous calculation and (2) what evidence exists to support
the notion that one with ordinary skill in the art would be aware
that one function can be used to calculate multiple bit patterns
simultaneously in the field of halftoning. The protest itself
does not constitute evidence but is merely attorney argument.
Conclusion
The rejection of claims 2-4, 12-14 and 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite is reversed.
The rejection of claims 1-7 and 11-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102
as being anticipated by Sullivan '501 is reversed.
The rejection of claims 1-7 and 11-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Daly or Sullivan '517, in view of
Parker, is vacated and remanded for further examination by the
examiner consistent with our opinion as set forth above.
-21-
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007