Appeal No. 2003-0266
Application No. 09/072,553
Reference is made to the brief (paper number 15) and the
answer (paper number 17) for the respective positions of the
appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through
13 and 18 through 20.
Claims 1 through 13 and 18 through 20 on appeal require the
step of digitally reading a formed image and a calibration
pattern and claims 1, 2 through 6, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 18 through 20
require the step of using the digital calibration pattern data to
correct the digital image data. Appellant argues (brief, page
12) that the system disclosed by Thurm is incapable of performing
the recited steps.
We agree. The examiner’s contentions (answer, pages 4 and
8) to the contrary notwithstanding, Thurm never digitally reads
the formed image 1a and the calibration pattern 1d. Instead,
Thurm performs an analog reading of the formed image and the
calibration pattern, and the analog image data and the analog
pattern data are subsequently converted to digital form by
analog-digital converter 19 for input to computer 20. The analog
formed image signal and the calibration pattern signal form
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007