Appeal No. 96-0650
Application No. 08/117,591
In summary, we agree with appellant’s argument (Reply
Brief, page 10) that Hardy “stores the entire image prior to
thinning.”
The obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 3, 6 through 8,
17 through 19, 28, 31, 32 and 36 through 38 is reversed
because the applied references neither teach nor would they
have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the claimed
thinning during the single pass scanning of the document. The
obviousness rejection of claims 4, 5, 9 through 16, 20 through
27, 29, 30, 33 through 35, 39 and 40 is reversed because Foley
does not cure the noted shortcomings in Matsunawa and Hardy.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007