Appeal No. 1997-4452
Application No. 08/653,978
skill.” (See answer at page 7.) These are not considerations in a rejection based upon
anticipation. Therefore, the examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is deficient and
the examiner has not provided a prima facie case of anticipation. Therefore, we will not
sustain the rejection of claim 15.
35 U.S.C. § 103
Appellant argues that the rejection is “based upon a conclusory allegation that is
without any factual support.” (See reply brief at page 5.) We agree with appellant. The
examiner maintains that “[i]t would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art
at the time the invention was made to use the intermediate resolution method of Kang to fill
the outline data of Hassett et al. in order to produce a filled character
whose edge is aligned on a grid representing the display space.” (Answer, page 5). In our
view, this is merely a conclusion which the examiner has not supported with any underlying
line of reasoning for combining the outline-based processing of Hassett with the bit-
mapped based processing of Kang. The examiner has not provided any convincing
rationale of performing a portion of the bitmap processing involving upscaling the image
while the image is still in the format of the outline as taught by Hassett. The examiner
“relies on a reasonable standard of knowledge and ability of
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007