Appeal No. 1998-0292
Application No. 08/209,633
Claims 3 to 8 and 14 to 19
These claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Burke
and Bleck. Appellants again argue [brief, page 11] that “[in]
the image mask operations described in the Bleck et al. article,
the contrast value is not defined dependent on the brightness
value, nor is the brightness value defined dependent on the
contrast value, as is inherent in claims 3-8 ...”. We note
that since the Examiner did not use Bleck to show this feature,
Appellants’ argument is moot. Therefore, we sustain the
obviousness rejection of claims 3 to 8 and 14 to 19 over Burke
and Bleck.
Claims 9 to 11 and 20 to 22
These claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Burke
and Mayo. Appellants [brief, page 11] again repeat the same
argument, i.e., “[t]he Mayo reference ... provides no teachings
whatsoever regarding defining a contrast value dependent on the
brightness value, or vis-a-versa.” Again, we note that since
the Examiner did not use the Mayo reference for this teaching,
Appellants’ argument is off the mark. Therefore, we sustain the
obviousness rejection of claims 9 to 11 and 20 to 22 over Burke
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007