Appeal No. 1998-0671
Application 08/285,328
Table 1, Br8) shows that independent claim 1 of this application
contains the limitation "generating a screened multi-level grey scale
pixel value," which is not found in either claim 1 of the '324
application or claim 1 of the '326 application ('821 patent). The
Examiner has not provided any reasoning why this limitation would
have been obvious. Appellants' claim analysis (e.g., Table 2, Br11)
also shows that independent claim 7 of this application contains the
limitation "screening means for generating a screened multi-level
grey scale pixel value," which is not found in either claim 9 of the
'324 application or claim 5 of the '326 application ('821 patent).
Again, the Examiner has not provided any reasoning why this
limitation would have been obvious. Because the Examiner has not
addressed the obviousness of the limitations of "generating a
screened multi-level grey scale pixel value" (claim 1) or "screening
means for generating a screened multi-level grey scale pixel value"
(claim 7), and has not attempted to show why the limitations of the
dependent claims would have been obvious, the Examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness-type double patenting
over the claimed subject matter of the '821 patent and the '324
application. The rejection of claims 1-14 and 17-19 is reversed.
- 11 -
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007