Appeal No. 95-4390
Application08/066,273
whether the Obata device meets the recitations of the density
contour shape and the density gradient profile.
Appellant points to these two parameters and argues
that the examiner admits that these two features are not
disclosed by Obata and that the examiner’s reasoning is not
persuasive. Specifically, appellant argues that the claims
call for a data entry means which is used by an operator, and
the resultant data of the claim cannot be met by the edges and
shadows of the original image in Obata [brief, pages 8-9].
The examiner responds that “claim 1 [sic, 7] does not recite
any operator,” and whatever manner the data got into the Obata
computer would meet the claimed data entry means [answer, page
9]. We agree with the examiner on this point.
Whatever data has been stored in the Obata computer
which permits objects to be drawn with variable shading meets
the claim recitation of defining a density contour shape and
defining a density gradient profile. Although the density
contour shapes and density gradient profiles of Obata may be
different from what appellant intended in his preferred
embodiment, we agree with the examiner that the broad
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007