Appeal No. 95-4373
Application 07/917,108
original image to the next. Appellant further argues on pages 2
and 3 of the reply brief that Appellant's independent claims 10
and 12 recite this limitation. In particular, Appellant states
that the Examiner has not taken into account the following
limitation of claims 10 and 12:
the improvement comprising changing the threshold value
from one original image to the next so that the
threshold value has a low value for a first group of
original images and a high value for a second group of
original images, where the original images of the first
group alternate with the original images of the second
group. [Emphasis added].
Appellant argues that Tzou fails to teach a procedure in which
the high threshold value will alternate with a low threshold
value from one original image to the next.
On pages 4 and 5 of the answer, the Examiner argues that
Tzou teaches changing the threshold for the original image to the
next in tables 1 and 2 and in column 5, lines 32-36 and column 6,
lines 12-29. The Examiner argues that Appellant's claims do not
require only two different threshold values which alternate.
However, we find that when reading the Appellant's claims as
a whole, the claims do require a process in which the high
threshold value will alternate with a low threshold value from
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007