Appeal No. 96-0882
Application No. 07/885,217
interpretation is consistent with appellants’ specification,
which explains that the size of the writing dot is reduced only
in the slow scan direction. This is also the way “diameter” is
used in Saito (e.g., col. 2, lines 2-3). As for the term
“reducing,” the claim does not explain what “reducing” is
measured with respect to. As a result, the “reducing” step is
broad enough to read on reducing a dimension of the writing dot
relative to any other dimension, such as the spacing between
pixel centers or the spacing between scanning lines. The claim
also does not specify the scanning direction (i.e., fast scan or
slow scan) in which limitation of visible dot overlap occurs.
Furthermore, because the claim does not require that visible dot
overlap be limited throughout recording of the entire image, it
is broad enough to read on limiting visible dot overlap during
recording of only part of an image, such as part of a single scan
line. Also, we do not construe the claim as requiring that the
dimension of the writing spot be reduced for the express purpose
of limiting visible spot overlap; it is sufficient that the
selected dimension of the writing spot inherently limits visible
dot overlap. Finally, the phrase “limit visible dot overlap”
does not preclude the existence of some visible dot overlap.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007