Appeal No. 1999-0587
Application 08/414,803
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and the examiner, reference is
made to the brief and reply brief as well as the answer for the respective positions of the
appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
In view of the teachings and suggestions of the applied prior art and the examiner's
reasoning in the answer, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 9 and 13 on appeal.
The focus of the dispute between the examiner and the appellants is best
summarized by the discussion at the bottom of page 2 of the reply brief. There, appellants
note that the prior art used drawing commands which contain mixing ratio information. On
the other hand, the applied prior art is alleged not to teach or suggest the feature of the
drawing command containing mixing ratio selection information rather than the mixing
ratios themselves. Appellants' Figure 11 and the discussion associated therewith at
pages 3 and 4 of the specification as filed indicates that the prior art did utilize drawing
commands which contain the mixing ratios themselves which are stored in the memory 26.
The claims on appeal reflect the drawing command structure of Figure 1 including the
index command utilizing the index memory 107 to in turn provide a select signal to the
mixing ratio table memory 106 which stores itself the respective mixing ratios. This
structure reflects the language of each independent claim on appeal relating to the drawing
command containing the selection information (rather than the ratios themselves).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007