Appeal No. 96-1628
Application No. 08/167,617
review, we will reverse the anticipation rejection of claims
1, 11, 21, 22, 24, and 31 through 36 and the obviousness
rejection of claim 12.
Claim 1, the only independent claim, recites
means for identifying those respective areas of
said image sensor means at which the incident
radiation intensity exceeds a predetermined
intensity . . . and
means . . . for selectively causing a reduction
in the voltage levels of said video image signals
corresponding to said respective areas, which
reduction is equivalent to applying a negative
offset to said video image signals.
Thus, the voltage level is reduced for those areas at which
the
intensity exceeds the threshold, and the reduction equals a
negative offset. Appellant shows in Figure 5 a uniform
reduction of all voltages representing intensities above the
threshold such that all of the voltages are reduced by the
same amount. Appellant describes Figure 5 (Specification,
page 9) as showing "a change in the image signals
corresponding to that area 21 (equivalent to applying a
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007