Ex parte CLAIR - Page 2

          Appeal No. 1997-1304                                                        
          Application 08/084,345                                                      

               Representative claim 1 is reproduced below:                            
               1.  A method of selectively repeating a unit image cell                
          in a pixelmap image datafile comprising a grid of pixel                     
          locations, the method comprising the steps of:                              
               a.  defining the unit image cell by specifying a bounded               
          region of pixels to be copied;                                              
               b.  defining an origin point on the grid;                              
               c.  defining two cartesian placement vectors such that at              
          least one placement vector is oriented vertically or                        
          horizontally and the other diverges therefrom by an angle                   
          equal to or less than 90E;                                                  
               c.[d.] generating linear combinations of the placement                 
          vectors that collectively specify a set of copying locations                
          in the pixelmap relative to the origin point; and                           
               d.[e.] sequentially copying the unit image cell into the               
          pixelmap datafile such that a predetermined location within                 
          the copied cell coincides with pixel [sic] specified by each                
          said linear combination of placement vectors.                               
               The following references are relied on by the examiner:                
          Yan et al. (Yan)         4,615,013                Sep. 30, 1986             
          Weyl, Symmetry, “Ornamental Symmetry” pp. 83-1132                           

               There appears to be no identifiable date as to this reference.2                                                                     
          It appears that it was originally supplied to the Office to be considered   
          as prior art as part of the submission on June 28, 1993 in appellant's prior
          art statement of that date.  Therefore, for purposes of its use as applied  
          prior art within 35 U.S.C.  103, appellant appears to have admitted by the 
          submission that it was prior art to him.                                    

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007