Appeal No. 2006-3221
Application No. 09/955,457
BACKGROUND
Appellants’ invention relates to a system and method for simulating fill flash in
photography. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary
claim 1, which is reproduced below.
1. A method of simulating fill flash in a camera system comprising
the steps of:
a) determining distances from the camera to objects in a scene; and
b) taking a photograph of the scene without using a flash; and
c) selectively adjusting the brightness of regions of the photograph
based on the distance information.
PRIOR ART
The prior art references of record relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the appealed
claims are:
Nishimura et al. (Nishimura) 5,617,141 Apr. 1, 1997
Miyadera 5,550,587 Aug. 27, 1996
Parulski et al. (Parulski) 5,563,658 Oct. 8, 1996
Kikuchi 6,757,020 June 29, 2004
REJECTIONS
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the Examiner and the
Appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Examiner's answer
(mailed June 12, 2006) for the reasoning in support of the rejection, and to Appellants’ brief
(filed April 18, 2006) and reply brief (filed July 20, 2006) for the arguments thereagainst.
Claims 1, 7, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Nishimura. Claims 2-4, 8-11, and 23-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nishimura in view of Parulski. Claims 5-6 and 12-13 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nishimura in view of Miyadera. Claims 15-22 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nishimura in view of Kikuchi.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007