Appeal No. 2002-1550
Application No. 09/158,884
With regard to independent claim 4, but for the argument re determining
the halftone dot count, appellants’ arguments here are the same as for independent
claim 1.
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 4-6 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. §102 (b)
because independent claim 4 requires “determining the halftone dot count for a pixel
under consideration . . .”. The examiner’s only treatment of this limitation is to say, at
page 3 of the answer, that this is taught by Ohuchi at “col. 6 lines 4-27, col. 8 lines
10-20, col. 20 lines 49-52 note that p is constituted for the halftone dot counts.” Since
there is no indication in Ohuchi that there is any determination of a “halftone dot count,”
it was up to the examiner to give a more convincing explanation as to how/why “p” is
considered to indicate such “halftone dot counts.” The examiner has not convinced us
of any reason for finding a determination of a “halftone dot count . . .” in Ohuchi.
Accordingly, we find no prima facie case of anticipation made out by the examiner with
regard to claims 4-6 and 9 and we will not sustain the rejection of these claims under
35 U.S.C. §102 (b).
We have sustained the rejection of claims 1-3, 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. §102 (b)
but we have not sustained the rejection of claims 4-6 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. §102 (b).
Accordingly, the examiner’s decision is affirmed-in-part.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007