Appeal No. 96-2379
Application 07/837,240
depend ultimately from claim 2.
Opinion
The rejection of claims 1-9 and 12-19
We sustain the rejection of claims 1-9 and 12-19.
This decision is based solely on the arguments raised by the
appellants. We offer no opinion on arguments which could have
been raised but which were not set forth in the appellant’s
brief.
The appellant's discussion of prior art dithering
techniques, both in the specification and in the background
section of the appeal brief, ignores the disclosure of Comins.
According to the appellant, prior art dithering techniques
require lots of processing steps and processing time by
separating intensity data into integer and fractional bits, by
comparing the fractional bits with a certain value in a dithering
matrix, and then by incrementing the integer bits if the results
of the comparison of fractional bits is within a certain range
(Br. at 12-13). The appellant's invention eliminates the need to
compare the fractional bits with the values in a dithering
matrix, by adding the intensity information as a whole to a
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007