Appeal No. 1999-0409
Application 08/425,741
examiner [brief, page 9]. Thus, appellants argue that the
bitblt of the admitted prior art is performed on sparse bit-
map data rather than on packed bit-map data as claimed [id.,
pages 9-11]. With respect to independent claim 2, appellants
additionally argue that the bitblt operation set forth in
clause (c) of claim 2 is not the same as the bitblt operation
taught by Morse [id., pages 12-15].
The examiner responds that the term “packed text
character” is very broad and is met by appellants’ block of
text character data or by Morse’s rectangular region of text
character data. The examiner finds that the text data is in
packed form regardless of whether the text data is packed with
spaces [answer, pages 5-6]. With respect to claim 2, the
examiner simply disagrees with appellants.
We agree with appellants’ position as argued in the
briefs. The examiner cannot rely on the admitted prior art
and then change what is taught by the admitted prior art. The
admitted prior art indicates that in monochrome bitblt,
“sparse monochrome (i.e. only one bit in each byte) sources
have been used for the color expansion of one destination
pixel” [specification, page 2]. The admitted prior art also
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007