Appeal No. 97-0271
Application No. 08/186,212
page 5), Mansour's plural heights are "[i]n direct
contradiction to the express limitation of Claim 1 which calls
for 'said glyphs all being of substantially uniform size'
(emphasis supplied)." For higher density, Sanford teaches
using plural levels of darkness and Miyanaga discloses using
plural colors. However, neither Sanford nor Miyanaga cures
the deficiency of Mansour of having multiple heights. The
examiner's only response to appellants' argument is (Answer,
page 5) that "[t]he Bloomberg patents (see figs. 3, 3A, 3B)
were later included in the rejection combination to teach
'same size' 'glyphs' as argued." However, as noted above, the
statement of the rejection before us does not include
Bloomberg. Therefore, Bloomberg cannot remedy the defect in
the rejection. Consequently, we cannot sustain the rejection.
Should further prosecution take place before the
examiner, we urge the examiner to consider anew the4
disclosures of the Bloomberg patents. For example, Bloomberg
II clearly teaches a sequence of self-clocking glyph codes
4The examiner is reminded that for any rejection the examiner may
decide to pursue, a complete explanation of the reasoning behind it is
required.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007