Appeal No. 96-3564
Application 08/274,133
displayed concurrently on the display. With the concurrent display of the first and second
text in the two modes, the background would be the same on the same display since the
second and third levels are limited and described with reference to the first level. If the first
luminance level varied then the relationship between the levels may not hold true.
Therefore, the Examiner's interpretation of the reference with respect to the claimed
invention is in error.
The Examiner 's interpretation of the Pleva reference to arguably meet the
decreasing contrast then alters the Examiner s' interpretation for the second mode. In the
second mode, the contrast is increased while the luminance is decreased. The Examiner
has argued that generating a lighter background would meet the increasing contrast, but
appellants argue that this would increase rather than decrease the overall luminance as
required in the claim language. (See brief at page 6.) Pleva does teach making the
foreground darker if the background is lighter which would meet the claim limitation of
"increasing contrast while decreasing overall luminance . . .", but then the limitation
requiring the "decreasing contrast while increasing overall luminance . . ." would not be met
by the Pleva reference.
The difference between the admitted prior art and the claimed invention is in the
manipulation of decrease in luminance of the foreground from a higher luminance to a
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007