Appeal No. 96-3564
Application 08/274,133
2 3
appellants, we make reference to the brief and answer for the details thereto.
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us we disagree with the Examiner that
claims 10-33 are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and we will not sustain the
rejection of claims 10-33.
As a consequence of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Turning to the rejection of claims 10-33, appellants argue that the claimed invention
distinguishes over Pleva. (See brief at page 6.) Appellants state:
[T]he backgrounds for the (sic) both the first mode and the second mode are
the same, i.e., 'first luminance level' - in contrast, Pleva discloses making the
background still lighter.
That the highlighted text (second mode) is achieved by 'increasing contrast
while decreasing overall luminance' - whereas Pleva does not disclose this,
but instead says that 'the background still lighter' which would increase
luminance."
The Examiner argues that "the claims do not require the first luminance in the first
mode is the same as the first luminance in the second mode or the claims are
broad enough to read on the first luminance of Pleva which includes light (or white) and
2Appellants filed a second appeal brief in compliance with 37 CFR 1.192, February 26, 1996,
(Paper No. 38). We will refer to this appeal brief as simply the brief.
3The Examiner responded to the brief with an examiner's answer mailed May 14, 1996, (Paper No.
39). We will refer to this examiner's answer as simply the answer.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007