Appeal No. 1999-2019
Application No. 08/646,810
Reply Brief (Paper No. 15) for appellants’ position with respect to the claims which stand
rejected.
OPINION
The examiner’s rejection of claims 45-48 for anticipation by Karasawa is set forth
on pages 10 and 11 of the Final Rejection. Appellants respond that the subject matter of
independent claim 45 is not anticipated because Karasawa uses fixed, predetermined
time periods for scanning. (See Brief, page 11.) Appellants’ position, as stated on pages
4 through 6 of the Brief, is that Karasawa discloses an interval “T1 x N” that is fixed before
scanning, and thus does not monitor the writing or reading of the image signal to or from
the memory (output buffer) as claimed.
We agree with appellants that the disclosure of Karasawa fails to meet the terms of
instant claim 45. As described in the paragraph bridging pages 5 and 6 of the (USPTO)
translation, the amount of data produced in one scan, “D,” is first determined. “D” is
determined on the basis of parameters such as desired magnification and trimming of the
image from the original 2. Based on the amount of data “H” that the external equipment 16
can receive “per 1 scan timing,” a minimum transmission parameter “N” is determined to
ensure that all the data can be received by the external apparatus before the next scan
cycle commences.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007