Appeal No. 2001-1420
Application No. 08/988,453
Even if Figure 1 of Dir might be considered as showing a multi-tone level
including at least three levels (i.e., at least three gray levels), as attributed by the
rejection, we do not find the teaching relevant to multi-tone level control with respect to
formation of a pixel, as recited in instant claims 1 and 13. Moreover, in our opinion,
proper interpretation of the term “pixel” as used in the claims also serves to distinguish
over the method and apparatus described by Takahashi.
While most of the examiner’s discussion centers on Figure 1 of Dir, as we have
previously noted the statement of the rejection (Answer at 4) refers to Figures 1 and
4(c) for the teaching of “multi-tone level including at least three levels.” The “Response
to Argument” section of the Answer adds reference to Dir’s Figure 7.
Figure 1 of Dir shows a related art method of presenting gray levels in a “typical”
reproduction section using halftone cells. Col. 1, ll. 29-43. Figure 4(c) is essentially
unrelated to the prior system of Figure 1. Figure 4(c) shows a measured gray level as a
function of time as toner is propelled through a shutter (Figs. 3(a) and 3(b)) in a direct
electrostatic printing (DEP) element. Col. 4, ll. 3-19. Dir’s invention is deemed an
improvement over use of halftone cells, utilizing pulse-width-modulated signals that
control gray levels of individual pixels. Col. 3, ll. 17-51 and Fig. 2. Further details of the
embodiment are set out in columns 4 and 5 of the reference.
While the embodiment of Dir’s invention may be considered as showing a multi-
tone level including at least three levels, the teaching is no closer to the instant claimed
subject matter than the prior art driver ICs described on pages 2 and 3 of the instant
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007