Appeal No. 2005-1384
Application 09/886,200
when claims can be amended, ambiguities should be recognized,
scope and breadth of language explored, and clarification
imposed.” In re Zletz, 893 F.2d at 321, 13 USPQ2d at 1322.
Next we treat appellant’s urging that Kikuchi and Kobayashi
do not teach or suggest the limitations of claims 8 and 9. We
treated this third stated rejection of claims 7 through 9
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over these references at pages 11
through 14 of our prior opinion. In doing so, we expanded upon
the examiner’s rationale of combinablitiy and, contrary to the
urging at page 3 of the Request for Rehearing, we did address the
mode change capability in accordance with a number of dots that
are arranged across the width of the lines forming an object
image. A careful reading of the paragraph bridging pages 12 and
13 of our original opinion at least emphasizes this language from
the claims.
Under topic C at page 4 of the Request for Rehearing
appellant urges again that the combination of Kikuchi with Ohsawa
would change the principle of operation of Kikuchi. This first
stated rejection is discussed in detail in our prior opinion at
pages 3 through 9. We simply did not agree with appellant’s
initial urging in the brief as to this argument in accordance
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007