Appeal No. 95-4390
Application08/066,273
recitation of these parameters is met by the variable shading
system of Obata.
In summary, appellant’s argument with respect to claim
7 is that the differences acknowledged by the examiner between
Obata and the claimed invention cannot be obvious over the
single Obata reference. As we noted above, however, the
examiner’s position on this point is that these “differences”
are actually present in Obata or are obviously present in
Obata. Thus, the question is one of claim interpretation and
the scope of the prior art. Giving claim 7 its broadest
reasonable interpretation, we agree with the examiner that the
processing means of Obata does define a density contour shape
and a density gradient profile. Therefore, we sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claims 7-11.
With respect to claim 12, the examiner finds that the
various light sources in Obata modify the shadows, and that
this type of modification is a form of noise [answer, page 7].
Appellant responds that there is no suggestion in Obata for
“intentionally generating noise data based on a noise factor
entered by the operator” [brief, page 10]. The examiner
responds that the utilization of ambient light approximates a
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007