Appeal No. 96-0882
Application No. 07/885,217
Thus, the rejection of Claim 13 is sustained.
Claim 14 recites a method of printing in which the two
scanning directions have different writing dot overlap and
different light beam resolution.
In at least six different ways, Umeda discloses two scanning
directions with different writing dot overlap. First, Figure 9
shows more writing spot overlap in the subscanning direction in
one pixel than in the main scanning direction between pixels.
Second, Figure 9 shows less writing dot overlap between pixels in
the subscanning direction than in the main scanning direction.
Third, Figure 9 shows less writing dot overlap within one pixel
in the subscanning direction (about two-thirds overlap) than in
the main scanning direction (complete overlap). Fourth, the
image in Figure 12(c) has at least three different overlaps: a
writing dot overlap that produces the printed dots elongated in
the subscanning (vertical) direction; a visible scan line overlap
between pixels in the subscanning direction; and a very limited
amount of overlap between printed dots in the main scanning
(horizontal) direction. Fifth, the image in Figure 12(d) also
has those three different overlaps. Sixth, the jitter
illustrated in Figure 13(c) introduces overlap in the horizontal
direction.
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007