Appeal No. 2002-1457
Application No. 09/047,315
resolution and does not include generating a bitmap that is
greater in resolution relative to that of the printer (brief,
page 4). Additionally, Appellants assert that Frazier uses the
same unchanged input data to generate an output resolution which
is never changed and remains the same as the resolution of the
input data but is different, either higher or lower, relative to
the default resolution of the output device (brief, pages 4 & 5).
Appellants argue that the claimed “converting the raster image
data to a resolution format greater than the given raster
capability of the imaging device is distinguished from the output
resolution obtained from the combination of the prior art
references where the output resolution is the same as that of the
input but is different from the default resolution of the device
(brief, page 6 and reply brief, pages 4 & 5).
In response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner asserts
that Frazier (col. 3, lines 59-68) teaches the techniques for
enhancing the resolution of an input that has greater resolution
relative to the printer (answer, page 9). With respect to
converting the input data to a higher resolution, the Examiner
points to elements 20 and 24 in Figure 14 of Frazier and argues
that such resolution transformation circuitry converts the source
data to a higher or lower resolution (answer, page 10).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007