Appeal No. 2001-1642
Application No. 09/191,310
the quality of an ophthalmic lens (Appeal Brief, page 7, lines 17
- page 8, line 2). Although Ebel does recognize that camera
defects are present, the digital data which corresponds to the
image is corrected for known defects using an algorithm. The
appellants contend that it is the lens evaluation procedure, not
the detection of defective pixels in the CCD array, that is
subjected to the statistical analysis (Appeal Brief, page 8, lines
11-20; page 9, lines 13-21).
After our review of the disclosure of Ebel, we find that we
are in agreement with the appellants, and shall reverse the
anticipation rejection.
The examiner has stated that Ebel classifies unclassified
pixels by determining a score based on statistical analysis of the
pixel value using an observation, and if the score for the pixel
meets a stopping condition, classifying each pixel as being
defective or functional, citing generally to the abstract. (Final
Rejection, paper #5, paragraph bridging pages 3 and 4).
However, we find that the examiner has misinterpreted the
abstract. Although it refers to “defective pixels,” the abstract
itself notes that the “defective pixels” are placed into groups
and given scores based upon the number, type and severity of the
defective pixels placed into that group. “From that, a weighted
score can be given to the entire lens and the lens either passes
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007