Appeal No. 97-0181
Application No. 08/245,613
Appellants argue that the values from the “continuous spatial reflectance
function” of Longacre are not gray level values and are “not pixels in the accepted
sense of the word.” (See reply brief at pages 4 and 8.) We do not make any
determination concerning this argument in view of the sparse description in Longacre and
the unknown accuracy of the illustration.
Appellants argue the specific sequence of the steps recited is the language of
claim 22 as it relates to the disclosure of Klancnik. (See reply brief at pages 9-12.) We
agree with appellants that Klancnik does not teach or suggest the sequence of steps to
determine the gray level values and use them to resolve ambiguity as to the location of the
cell edge position as set forth in claim 22.
Appellants argue that Klancnik does not teach or suggest low resolution as the
Examiner has asserted. (See reply brief at page 12.) We agree with appellants that
Klancnik at most teaches low resolution to determine the “quiet zone” and then uses high
resolution to determine the actual width of the bar code elements. But we note that the
language of claim 22 does not expressly require "low resolution."
Furthermore, appellants argue that the references do not teach or suggest the
language of claim 25 concerning
(a) . . . said cell coverage pixel having a gray level value representing the
position of said cell edge crossing subject to an ambiguity as to the order
along said axis of complementary pixel portions of said cell coverage pixel
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007