Appeal No. 1997-0401
Application 08/305,262
1995
(filed Sep. 19,
1992)
Claims 1 to 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As
evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies upon Oz in view
of Keith.
Rather than repeat the positions of appellant and the
examiner, reference is made to the Brief and the Answer for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
For the reasons generally set forth by appellant in the
Brief, and for the reasons which follow, we will reverse the
rejection of claims 1 to 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In
reaching our conclusion on the issues raised in this appeal,
we have carefully considered appellant’s specification and
claims, the applied patents, and the respective viewpoints of
appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review,
we are in general agreement with appellant that the applied
references would neither have taught nor suggested the
appellant’s claims on appeal.
The examiner and appellants are in agreement that the
primary reference to Oz does not teach dithering. The
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007