Appeal No. 2002-1457
Application No. 09/047,315
Claims 21 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Claims 1-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Eschbach in view of Frazier.
We make reference to the answer (Paper No. 14, mailed
September 11, 2001) for the Examiner’s reasoning, and to the
brief (Paper No. 13, filed June 25, 2001) and the reply brief
(Paper No. 15, filed January 22, 2002) for Appellants’ arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In rejecting claims 21 and 22 under the second paragraph of
35 U.S.C. § 112, the Examiner points to the limitations of “given
scan line definition” and “such that at least some of the second
data is imaged offset from the raster scan line definition” as
vague and unclear (answer, page 3). Appellants argue that all
imaging devices have a given or default raster scan line
definition depending on the raster scan lines arrangement and
dictated by the resolution of the bitmap and the pitch of the
laser scan (reply brief, page 2). Appellants further assert that
the normal and reasonable meaning of “offset” is “placed or moved
out of line or out of the center” which is consistent with the
teachings of the specification that some data is formed
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007