Appeal No. 2002-1457
Application No. 09/047,315
and conclude that 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 recited in claims 21
and 22, are clear and would reasonably apprise those skilled in
the art of the scope of these limitations. Accordingly, we will
not sustain the rejection of claims 21 and 22 under the second
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
Turning now to the rejection of claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103, we note that the Examiner relies on Eschbach for teaching
a method of rendering raster images that includes receiving
raster image data and rendering the increased resolution with the
image device (answer, page 3). The Examiner further relies on
Frazier for modifying a display device having a nominal
resolution to produce output dots at positions that are not at
the normal resolution positions of the scan lines of the display
device (answer, page 4). Finally, the Examiner concludes that
combining the image production of Eschbach and Frazier for
providing an increased resolution format image formed
interstitially relative to the scan lines would have been obvious
(id.).
Appellants argue that Eschbach only teaches generating a
bitmap that is at most equal in resolution to an output printer
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007