Appeal No. 95-2848
Application 07/796,971
obviousness. Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d
1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
When these rules are considered under the facts of this
case, we agree with appellant that there is no basis for the
artisan to combine the teachings of Kojima with the teachings of
Kitamura in the manner proposed by the examiner. The examiner
has recognized that Kitamura fails to suggest the second forming
step in which a second intensity value is calculated using at
least one different pixel than was used in the first forming
step. Kitamura teaches a single calculation step using four
pixels adjacent to the pixel of interest. Although Kojima
teaches a technique for adjusting a pixel of interest by
successively looking at different surrounding pixels, Kojima
merely replaces the pixel of interest with one of the surrounding
pixel values, and no forming of a second value takes place as
recited in the claims. Thus, neither reference teaches the
claimed technique of calculating one value as a threshold
condition and calculating a second value using at least one
different pixel when the threshold is not reached.
We can see no reason why the artisan would seek to modify
the Kitamura technique with the technique disclosed by Kojima.
Kojima repairs defective pixels by replacing them with good or
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007