Appeal 2007-1983
Application 09/800,366
sensitivity image of a set of such images would be obtained during the
respective frame time for each image using the plural measurement and
averaging technique noted above with respect to claim 1. Therefore, the
recited steps (applying, measuring, computing, and producing) would be
repeated for each respective image. The claim is therefore fully met by the
Wood references.
Claims 7, 9, 10, 11, 14-17, 20, and 22-26
Although Appellant nominally argues the rejection of dependent
claims 7, 9, 10, 11, 14-17, 20, and 22-26 separately (Br. 23-27), the
arguments presented do not separately argue with particularity the
limitations of the dependent claims, nor do they specifically point out the
alleged deficiencies of the Wood references with respect to the limitations
recited in the dependent claims. Rather, the arguments essentially reiterate
the same arguments we considered above with respect to claims 1 and 13.
We therefore sustain the rejection of these claims for the same reasons
discussed above in connection with claims 1 and 13. That is, we find that
the Examiner has established at least a prima facie case of anticipation for 7,
9, 10, 11, 14-17, 20, and 22-26 on pages 3-6 of the Answer that Appellant
has not persuasively rebutted. The Examiner’s rejection of these claims is
therefore sustained.
The Obviousness Rejections
Claims 3-5
We now consider the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3-5 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wood ‘149, Wood ‘419, and APA. In
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013