Appeal No. 1997-4025
Application 08/340,958
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments
advanced by appellants and the examiner and agree with
appellants that the aforementioned rejections are not well
founded. Accordingly, we reverse these rejections.
Appellants’ claim 1 requires, inter alia, determining a
minimum exposure level value, based upon the number and
position of ON defects in a column of a spatial light
modulator, and adding the minimum exposure level to all of a
latent image.
The examiner argues that the following disclosure by
Yoshida (col. 2, lines 44-49) “meets the determining step and
the thresholding step” (answer, page 9):
According to an aspect of the invention, a
threshold value setting circuit is provided which
comprises a means for detecting the brightest or
highest level of a screen which consists of a number
of picture elements, and means for reducing the
brightest or highest level to thereby set a
threshold value.
moot because that application has been abandoned (notice of
abandonment mailed on September 26, 1997). A rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, which is addressed in the
appeal brief was withdrawn in the final rejection (paper no.
9, mailed October 2, 1996).
-4-4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007