Appeal No. 2000-1398
Application No. 07/842,082
fact, the mention of “density” in the reference refers to a light reflection property of an
area of a developed image. Thus, appellant’s position is that Kawamura does not
disclose or suggest the claimed “determining a resolution of the image data by
examining the image data.”
We agree with appellant.
While Kawamura does mention “density,” there is no indication that such density
translates into a “resolution” of image data, as claimed. As shown in Figure 8 of the
reference, image data is received through a single line from image data output device
100. Density converter 203 is used for “density-converting the multi-level density data
202a” [column 7, lines 55-56]. It is true that Kawamura provides image data to a
selected one of a plurality of different types of recording devices [note column 7, lines
58-60, wherein the “image output devices 200 can be different output devices...”].
However, contrary to the examiner’s position, we find no suggestion of “determining a
resolution of the image data by examining the image data” nor of “selecting one of a
plurality of different types of recording devices based on the determined resolution.”
The digital image at 101 in Figure 8 of Kawamura is bi-level data which is then
converted by multi-level converter 202 before being density converted by element 203.
However, there is no indication anywhere in Kawamura that there is any kind of
resolution determination regarding the image data appearing on line 101. Moreover,
while Kawamura discloses a plurality of different types of recording devices to which
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007