Appeal No. 2000-1398
Application No. 07/842,082
image data may be output, there is no indication that a choice of which output device to
be employed is based, in any way, on resolution of the image data.
While Figure 11 of the reference is directed to a fourth embodiment, and Figure
8 is directed to a third embodiment, it is instructive to refer to the description of Figure
11, at column 10, line 61 through column 11, line 6, which describes a purpose of
Kawamura’s invention. That is, because a perceived problem is that different ones of a
plurality of output recording devices output different images due to different output
densities of the devices, Kawamura seeks to cause the plurality of output recording
devices to output identical images by adjusting for the different densities. Thus,
Kawamura is not determining a resolution of an image by examining image data and
then selecting one of a plurality of recording devices based on that resolution
determination. Rather, Kawamura density-converts the image data at each image
output device in order to adjust the density of the output device so that each output
device outputs an identical image.
While appellant and the examiner spend much of the briefs arguing as to the
definition of “density” vs. “resolution,” the examiner has failed to show, in our view, how
Kawamura in any way suggests the determination of the resolution of the incoming
image data and then, based on this resolution determination, selecting an appropriate
recording device.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007