Appeal No. 95-3282
Application No. 07/758,149
F.2d 760, 771, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert.
denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
We do not find, in Ellis, the presence of determining
“for each pixel the length of a vector whose components are
defined by values related to the fringe values of that
pixel,” as recited in independent claims 1 and 5. The
examiner points us to column 6, lines 14-39 and Figure 2 of
Ellis for such a teaching. However, our review of the cited
portion of the reference reveals no teaching of determining
the length of a vector for each pixel wherein vector
components are defined by values related to fringe values of
that pixel.
The examiner appears to have a problem with the breadth
of the term “related to the fringe values” and argues that
the “black fringe calculation” of Ellis anticipates “this
broad claim language” [principal answer, top of page 17].
The language “related to the fringe values” does not stand
in a vacuum. It is part of, and gives extra meaning to,
the determination “for each pixel the length of a vector
whose components are defined by values related to the fringe
values of that pixel.” Yet, the examiner appears to have
given little, if any, weight to the fact that it is the
“length of a vector” which is being determined, the
components of that vector being defined by values related to
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007