Appeal No. 1998-1395
Application No. 08/606,634
In new grounds of rejection set forth in the Examiner's Answer, claims 24 and 30
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hiratsuka, and claims
24-26 and 30-32 stand rejected under the same statute as being unpatentable over Tutt.
We refer to the Final Rejection (mailed Feb. 3, 1997) and the Examiner's Answer
(mailed Sep. 30, 1997) for a statement of the examiner's position and to the Brief (filed Jul.
7, 1997) and the Reply Brief (filed Dec. 1, 1997) for appellants' position with respect to the
claims which stand rejected.
OPINION
In arguments presented against the rejection of independent claims 22 and 28 as
being anticipated by Tutt, appellants urge that Tutt is directed "solely to processing of
binary pixels and not grey level pixels." (Brief at 5.) Appellants point to a purported
definition of "grey scale" in the instant specification, and refer to a portion of the Tutt
disclosure as additional support for the position that "grey scale" pixels are different from
"binary" pixels. (Id. at 6.)
In the Answer, the examiner does not appear to respond to appellants' observation
with regard to the Tutt reference. With respect to the argued definition of "grey scale"
appearing in the specification, the examiner expresses the opinion that a "grey scale
system" is defined, rather than "grey level pixels."
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007