Appeal No. 2004-2147
Application No. 10/241,556
Instant claim 1 recites that the step of performing a pixel density transforming
process on the image signal is “in accordance with a pixel size, which is determined in
accordance with a desired image size.” Initially, we note our disagreement with the
examiner’s contention, at page 11 of the Answer, that the scope of the claim
encompasses an unchanged pixel density following “a pixel density transforming process
on the image signal.” Appellant’s specification, at the bottom of page 19, defines the
process as requiring an alteration of the pixel density (or pixel size) of the image signal
from the solid-state radiation detector. By setting forth a clear definition in the
specification, appellant has disclaimed the “unity” transformation described by the
examiner.
The specification (at 19) also defines the “desired image size” in terms of the pixel
density and pixel size that is required by the output device (e.g., a printer). Since a
“pixel” is known in the art as the smallest discrete component of an image or picture,
pixel size and density are inversely related. Although the instant claims speak of both
“pixel density” and “pixel size,” we are mindful that a change in pixel size results in a
change in pixel density, and vice versa. The “pixel density transforming process” of
instant claim 1 may also be described in terms of a pixel size transformation. Appellant’s
specification provides the example of an input device having a pixel size of 100 :m, and
thus a pixel density of 10 pixels per millimeter. (Spec. at 27-28.) Consequent to a
transformation process for an output device, the pixel size is changed to 200 :m,
resulting in a pixel density of 5 pixels per millimeter. (Id. at 33-35.)
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007