Appeal No. 95-4390
Application08/066,273
random reflection of light which is a type of noise data which
has been entered by the operator. We do not agree.
The concept of noise data in claim 12 is that the
operator specifically chooses a noise factor which is used to
correct the modified image data. Noise by definition affects
processing in a random manner. The examiner’s assertion that
the
reflections of light in Obata are random is without
foundation. All light sources in Obata have known locations
and the objects have specific shapes. The reflected light in
Obata is based on theoretical considerations of light
reflection and is not a function of randomness. Therefore, we
do not agree with the examiner that the shadowing in Obata can
be considered to include noise data based on a noise factor
entered by an operator. Since the examiner’s conclusion is
not supported by the record in this case, we do not sustain
the rejection of claim 12.
In conclusion, we have sustained the examiner’s
rejection of claims 7-11, but we have not sustained the
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007