Appeal No. 2002-1457
Application No. 09/047,315
We agree with Appellants’ assertion (brief, page 5 and
reply brief, page 4) that the input image data in Frazier is
never converted and remains unchanged while the display
capability of the printer is adjusted to that of the input image
data. As discussed above, none of the references recognize the
converting of the input image data to a resolution greater than
that of the image device. Thus, assuming, arguendo, that it
would have been obvious to combine Eschbach with Frazier, as held
by the Examiner, the combination would still fall short of
teaching converting the image data to a resolution higher than
the image device resolution and forming the increased resolution
image data interstitially relative to scan lines defined by the
given raster capability of the imaging device.
In view of our analysis above, we find that the Examiner has
failed to set forth a prima facie case of obviousness because the
necessary teaching and suggestion related to the conversion of
the input data resolution and rendering the increased resolution
image data with an imaging device, as recited in claims 1, 13,
14, 21 and 22 neither are shown nor can be derived from the
combination of the references. Accordingly, we do not sustain
the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of independent claims 1, 13, 14, 21
and 22, nor of claims 2-12 and 15-20 dependent thereon.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007