Interference No. 103,587
No. 07/875,210, filed April 28, 1992 (Paper No. 97). In the motion Katayama also sought
benefit of its Japanese Application Nos. 62-289152 and 62-289170, both filed
November 16, 1987. At page 11 of the motion, Katayama avers that Levien will not file a
separate opposition to this motion and that the bases for Levien’s opposition are set forth in
Levien’s belated motion to deny Kataya ma priority benefit of its Japanese applications, and in
Levien’s Brief for Final Hearing, beginning at page 17.
Katayama’s motion for benefit is granted.
At pages 4-11 of its motion, Katayama presents Tables A-C to establish support for
Levien Proposed Count B (count 2) in its prior U.S. and Japanese applications. We find the
showing persuasive.
In its belated motion and brief, Levien’s position consists of the argument that
Katayama’s prior applications do not teach “variable size dots.” Levien relies on LX-16, two
pages of Webster’s New Dictionary and Thesaurus, to establish that “dot” means “a small spot”
and that “spot” is defined as “a small area differing in color from the surrounding area.”
Levien further argues that the number of background dots does not change as a result of
Katayama’s processing. Referring to KX 7-9, where KX-7 is a printout of a pattern of dots
produced by prior art error diffusion processing and KX-8 and KX-9 are printouts of patterns of
dots produced by Katayama’s processing, the junior party argues that it can be seen from the dots
in the respective circle B in each exhibit that, although Katayama’s processing separates adjacent
black dots into singularities as illustrated in KX-8 and KX-9, when comparing the total number
of background white dots in the circle B of KX-7 with the total number of background white dots
in the circle of KX- 8 or KX-9, the total number of white dots does not change as a result of
Katayama’s processing.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007