Appeal No. 95-4390
Application08/066,273
scanning means or the recording means, but the examiner
provides an analysis as to why these elements would have been
an obvious modification to Obata. We note that appellant does
not question these particular findings of the examiner. Thus,
we accept the examiner’s conclusion that at least the claimed
scanning means and the recording means would have been obvious
to the artisan in view of the teachings of Obata.
The examiner also notes that Obata “fails to
explicitly disclose” the means for “defining a density contour
shape” and “defining a density gradient profile” [answer,
pages 5-6]. Although the examiner’s analysis nominally looks
at this question as an obviousness question, the examiner’s
analysis also makes it clear that the examiner’s position is
that these parameters, in fact, already exist in Obata. Thus,
the examiner finds that the edges of the shapes in Obata
define contour shapes within the meaning of the claim.
Likewise, the examiner finds that the calculation of shadows
of varying intensity in Obata is a determination of density
gradients because a varying density defines a density gradient
profile [answer, page 6]. Therefore, the obviousness issue
with respect to claim 7 actually reduces to a consideration of
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007