Appeal No. 95-1217
Application 08/039,674
b. Claims 7 through 11
The rejection of claim 7 is based upon the teachings of
the Corwin et al. and Fukumizu, as applied to claim 1, taken
in view of Crimmins et al. We reverse the rejection of claim
7, and of dependent claims 8 through 13, because the Examiner
has not shown that there is a motivation to combine Crimmins
et al. with Corwin
et al. and Fukumizu. See In re Rouffet, 47 USPQ2d 1453, 1456
(Fed. Cir. 1998) (holding that, when a rejection is based on a
combination of prior art references, there must be some
teaching, motivation, or suggestion to combine the
references).
Claim 7 recites that the digitized video image is
processed "in a plurality of parallel processing chains" and
that "one or more of the processing chains includes a
numerical inversion operation for inverting the shading within
the image such that a relatively dark image on a relatively
light background becomes equivalent to a relatively light
image on a relatively dark background." The Examiner stated
that Crimmins et al. discloses the concept of numerical
inversion that is recited in claim 7. In the Examiner’s view,
22
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007