Appeal No. 2002-0376
Application No. 09/072,137
find no teaching of the use of a standard value of an element density which was
previously stored and comparison of the standard value with the element density to
either repeat the compaction or terminate the compaction process as recited in the
language of independent claim 1. Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of
independent claim 1 over Lee, Boyle, Kamdar, Edwards, Kawakami or Greidinger. Nor
can we sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2-6 over Boyle, Kamdar or Edwards.
Independent claims 7 and 9 contain similar limitations not taught by any of the applied
references. Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of independent claims 7 and 9
over Lee, Boyle, Kamdar, Edwards, Kawakami or Greidinger and their dependent
claims 8, 10, and 11 over Boyle, Kamdar or Edwards.
With respect to independent claim 12, appellants argue that Lee does not teach
the use of a predetermined standard value as recited in the claim. (See brief at page
18.) We agree with appellants. We have reviewed the prior art applied by the
examiner paying special attention to the cited portions, and we find no teaching of the
use of a standard value of an element density which was used to adjust the element
density to be close to or larger than a predetermined standard value. In the examiner’s
response to the arguments section of the answer, the examiner generally restates the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007