Appeal No. 1998-0671
Application 08/285,328
Obviousness
In the final rejection, the Examiner found that Eschbach does
not disclose screening the multi-level grey scale pixel value, but
concluded that "[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time of the invention for Eschbach to screen the
pixel because screening is disclosed by the applicant as being prior
art, figure 1, and thus obvious substitution for reducing the levels"
(emphasis added) (FR8-9).
Appellants note that the screening function is the combination
of modulator and comparator for thresholding. Appellants argue that
the fact that one process, (screening), can be substituted for
another, (thresholding with error diffusion), does not teach one of
ordinary skill in the art that error diffusion would be carried out
after screening as claimed (Br18).
Since "substitute" means "to put in the place of another," the
Examiner's reasoning in the final rejection seems to propose putting
screening in place of the method of reducing levels in Eschbach,
which does not make sense. It is the Examiner's final rejection that
is being reviewed in this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134. See
In re Webb, 916 F.2d 1553, 1556, 16 USPQ2d 1433, 1435 (Fed. Cir.
- 12 -
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007