Appeal No. 96-1729
Application No. 08/165,795
claimed invention comprise. Therefore, we reverse the
outstanding rejections of claims 5 through 8 under the first
and second paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
Turning lastly to the rejections of claims 1 through 11
under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we reverse both of the above stated
rejections. Each of independent claims 1, 4 and 9 on appeal
recite at a minimum the following:
[D]ividing the first multi-pixel cell into two equal
groups of alternating pixels with a first one of
said groups being on and a second of said groups
being off.
Our study of the combined teachings of Roetling and Tai
leads us to agree with appellant’s observations at pages 5 and
6 of the reply brief which we reproduce here:
Roetling fails to discuss dividing a cell made up of
a number of pixels into two equal groups of
alternating pixels with the first on and the second
off. The newly cited U.S. patent to Tai does not
overcome the deficiencies of Roetling. Tai uses a
method entirely different from Roetling and entirely
different from Appellant to reproduce an original
image (reply brief, page 5).
Nowhere does Tai suggest that he uses a template
which consists of pixels which alternate between
black and white pixels. Tai clearly says that each
of the pixels has a gray level and in fact
determines the gray level for each pixel. Further,
any template that Tai generates is modified using
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007