Appeal No. 2004-2147
Application No. 10/241,556
§ 103 rejection of claims 2, 3, 5/2, 5/3, 6/2, 6/3, 7, 9, 10, 12/9, 12/10, 13/9, 13/10,
14, and 19-22 over Sayed and Coward
Claims 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, and 14
Instant claim 2 recites that the transforming process is performed in accordance
with a pixel density of an output apparatus. Because pixel density is fixed by pixel size,
as we have discussed supra with respect to the rejection for anticipation of claim 1, we
find that the transformation in Sayed is in accordance with the pixel density of the
display, to the same extent that the process is in accordance with the pixel size of the
display. We sustain the rejection against the instant group of claims. For representative
claim 2, we need not go beyond consideration of the teachings of Sayed to sustain the
rejection.
Claims 5/2, 6/2, 5/3, 6/3, 12/9, 12/10, 13/9, and 13/10
Instant claim 5, as it further limits the subject matter of base claims 1 and 2,
recites the same limitation regarding “magnification ratio” that we have addressed supra,
with respect to claim 5/1. We sustain the rejection of the instant group of claims for the
same reasons that we have sustained the rejection against claims 1, 2, and 5/1.
Claims 19-22
Instant claim 19 recites that the process transforms the pixel density such that a
number of pixels for the desired image size is “substantially constant” regardless of a
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007