Ex Parte MORRIS et al - Page 1




                The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
                                                                                                 Paper No. 25              
                           UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                                                       
                                                      ____________                                                         
                                 BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                                                        
                                               AND INTERFERENCES                                                           
                                                      ____________                                                         
                Ex parte TONIA G. MORRIS, KEVIN M. CONNOLLY, and LAWRENCE A. BOOTH, JR.                                    
                                                      ____________                                                         
                                                  Appeal No. 2005-0439                                                     
                                                Application No. 09/106,994                                                 
                                                      ____________                                                         
                                                         ON BRIEF                                                          
                                                      ____________                                                         
              Before KRASS, BARRETT, and BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.                                              
              BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                                          


                     A patent examiner rejected claims 1, 3-6, 8-10, and 18-28.  The appellants                            
              appeal therefrom under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a).  We affirm.                                                       
                                                   I. BACKGROUND                                                           
                     The invention at issue on appeal concerns an "imager."  (Spec. at 1.)  According                      
              to the appellants, a typical digital camera uses an imager to capture an optical image.                      
              For its part, the imager includes an array of photosensitive sensors.  Each sensor                           
              measures the intensity of a portion, viz., a "pixel," of a representation of an image                        
              focused onto the array, (id.), and indicates an intensity of light of the pixel via an analog                
              signal.  The camera processes the indications from the sensors to form a frame of                            








Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007