Appeal No. 1998-0292
Application No. 08/209,633
(either the contrast value as in claim 12, or the brightness)
... is prescribed, while the other value is defined dependent on
this prescribed value.” (Emphasis added). The Examiner applies
the same rationale to the rejection of claim 12 as for claim 1.
We would like to additionally note that Burke’s figure 9 also
lends support to the Examiner’s anticipation rejection. In
figure 9, contrast is chosen at step 75 and the intensity is
calculated at step 79 by taking contrast into account. Thus, we
sustain the anticipation rejection of claim 12 and its grouped
claim 13 over Burke.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007