Ex parte KAWATA

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 12, 1998

07672497 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 12, 1998)

THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 30
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte TOSHIYUKI KAWATA
_______________
Appeal No. 95-1516
Application 07/672,4971
_______________
RECONSIDERATION
_______________
Before THOMAS, KRASS, and FLEMING, Administrative Patent
Judges.
KRASS, Administrative Patent Judge.
ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Appellant requests reconsideration of that part of our
decision of June 19, 1997 wherein we entered a new ground of
rejection, in accordance with 37 CFR 1.196(b), against claims
1 through 3 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. ' 103. Presumably,
appellant has no problem with our reversal of the examiner’s
rejection of claims 1 through 6 under 35 U.S.C. ' 103 and '
112.
Appeal No. 95-1516
Application No. 07/672,497
2
The new ground of rejection was against claims 1 through
3 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. ' 103 over Hirane in view of Zeise and
Suzuki. Our reasoning is set forth on pages 10-11 of the
decision of June 19, 1997 and we make reference thereto.
Appellant contends that this new ground of rejection is
improper.
In particular, appellant asserts two points:
1. That we did not take into account the limitation of claim 1
which recites
a density correction circuit for outputting
corrected picture signal data to said shift register
in accordance with the correction density data
selected by said density selective circuit
and that none of the cited references teaches or suggests this
claimed limitation. Appellant contrasts this limitation with
the teaching in Suzuki of encoder 43 outputting a binary 1 on
signal line S if the pixel pattern surrounding center pixel X
in register 38 corresponds to either a black or white line.
2. That the laser beam intensity in Suzuki is controlled by
the binary output S of encoder 43 so that the
intensity may be varied only between two levels in contrast to
the image processing system of the instant invention which can

1 Application for patent filed March 20, 1991.
Appeal No. 95-1516
Application No. 07/672,497
3
control the amount of current individually for each pattern
detected.
We will respond to appellant’s points in order:
1. As our decision indicated at the top of page 11, we did
take the claimed “density correction circuit” into account,
identifying such as being taught by Suzuki. Clearly, encoder
43
in Suzuki is the density correction circuit since it controls
the laser beam intensity in order to prevent thickening of a
black fine line [see column 4, lines 12-19 of Suzuki]. The
encoder 43 outputs a signal S in accordance with correction
density data selected by a density selective circuit [i.e.,
nine pixel data outputs from the pixel X and adjacent pixels
A-H are supplied to the encoder-column 4, lines 12-14 of
Suzuki]. When this teaching of providing for a sharper, finer
image is taken together with the teachings of Hirane and
Zeise, for the reasons recited at pages 10-11 of our decision,
the artisan would clearly have arrived at the claimed subject
matter.
It is true that Suzuki does not show the corrected
picture signal data being input to a shift register in the LED
head, as claimed. However, Suzuki is employed to show the
obviousness of using a line memory, a density selective
Appeal No. 95-1516
Application No. 07/672,497
4
circuit and a density correction circuit, as claimed, for
providing sharper, finer images. Upon modifying the Hirane
device, whose shift register has been replaced with the 3-bit
shift register of Zeise, the output of the density correction
circuit would have been provided to the shift register in
order to refine the image represented by the data therein.
2. With regard to appellant’s argument that the laser beam
intensity of Suzuki is varied only between two levels in
contrast to the instant invention wherein the image processing
system can control the amount of current individually for each
pattern detected, while this may be so, the individually
controlled current for each pattern detected and the number of
laser beam intensity levels form no part of the instant
claimed subject matter. However, to the extent that appellant
is claiming such individually controlled current for each
pattern detected in instant claim 2, the applied references do
teach a plurality of LEDs as the light source and Hirane
teaches a plurality of current control circuits for
controlling an amount of current supplied to the LEDs.
Appellant’s arguments have not convinced us of any error
in our decision of June 19, 1997. Accordingly, appellant’s
request for reconsideration has been granted to the extent
Appeal No. 95-1516
Application No. 07/672,497
5
that we have reconsidered our decision but the request is
denied with respect to making any changes therein.
DENIED
James D. Thomas )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
Errol A. Krass ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
Michael R. Fleming )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 95-1516
Application No. 07/672,497
6
Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Kurz
555 - 13th St., N.W.
Suite 701 East Tower
Washington, DC 20004