Appeal 2007-0831
Application 10/417,656
Appellants’ argument (Reply Br. 3) that “Ranganathan explicitly
identifies that the implications of pixel reduction are a problem in the
Background of the Invention section of the patent, and then goes on to
describe a solution that does not suffer from that problem” is without merit
because it is abundantly clear from the rejection that the Examiner is relying
solely on the admitted prior art in Ranganathan. As indicated supra, all of
the disclosures in a reference must be fairly evaluated for what they would
have suggested to the skilled artisan. If power reduction at the display is the
primary goal, then the skilled artisan would have known from the admitted
prior art in Ranganathan to use pixel reduction. On the other hand, if higher
resolution is the primary goal, then the skilled artisan would have known to
avoid the admitted prior art approach taught by Ranganathan because pixel
reduction would reduce the resolution of the display. In any event,
Appellants’ argument (Reply Br. 3 and 4) that Ranganathan “expressly
teaches away from the pixel reduction” is without merit in view of the
teachings found in the Background of the Invention in Ranganathan. Based
upon the teachings in the Background of Ranganathan, a font of reduced size
in the whole display requires fewer active pixels than a full-sized font
previously presented in the whole display. Displaying the “whole image” in
reduced-pixel form does not require more than only reducing the size of
some discrete text, as argued by Appellants (Reply Br. 5).
With respect to Appellants’ argument (Reply Br. 4 and 5) that “the
Examiner is not giving weight to the plain and ordinary meaning of
Applicant’s claims as interpreted by Applicant’s Specification, which clearly
describes and illustrates what such pixel reduction comprises,” we hereby
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013