Appeal No. 95-4645
Application 07/678,441
Page 9 of the Principal brief on appeal begins a series of
arguments that the above noted means for modifying of independent
claims 10 and 19 is not taught within 35 U.S.C. § 102 in Hirano.
More specifically, the arguments beginning at the bottom of page
10 through page 11 of the Principal brief on appeal take the
position that in accordance with the sixth paragraph of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, the reference does not teach the process table of Figure 9
and thus, the process of modifying the image data by diffussing
one pixel of data into data of surrounding pixels as described at
page 17, lines 9 to 12 of the specification as filed.
To expand upon this correlation it appears that the subject
matter of Figure 9 is discussed beginning at line 3 of page 17
through the end of the specification. A specific manner of
modifying is, as urged by appellants, discussed at page 17 in the
manner argued. The succeeding pages discuss Figure 10 and Figure
11 of the specification as filed. Even though the discussion in
the specification relating to Figure 11 does not discuss in
detail the process table of Figure 9, it is shown in Figure 11 as
a part of the application program. As noted by the examiner in
the responsive arguments portion at page 6 of the initial
examiner’s answer, the referenced portion of the specification at
page 17 makes reference only to modifying image data whereas the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007