Appeal No. 1998-2676
Application 08/655,423
value or how this value provides the claimed error
modification. The application disclosure describes the
effective spot area value as a function of the characteristics
of the printer. Specifically, the spot overlap of a given
printer is empirically determined, and the input dependent
effective spot area as recited in the claims is a function of
these empirically determined values. The examiner’s finding
of anticipation is based entirely on a speculative
interpretation of Lin. We can find nothing in Lin which
suggests that there is any teaching of the use of effective
spot area values as that term is used in the specification and
the claims. Therefore, we do not sustain the anticipation
rejection of any of claims 1-3, 7, 15-17 and 19 based on the
disclosure of Lin.
We now consider the rejection of claims 18, 20 and 22-
24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the teachings of
Lin. In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is
incumbent upon the examiner to establish a factual basis to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See In re Fine,
837 F.2d 1071, 1073, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In
so doing, the examiner is expected to make the factual
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007