Appeal No. 96-4092
Application 08/278,363
'heart' of the invention." Para-Ordnance Mfg. v. SGS
Importers Int'l, Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1087, 37 USPQ2d 1237,
1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 117 S.Ct. 80 (1996)
citing W. L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d
1540, 1548, 220 USPQ 303, 309 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied,
469 U.S. 851 (1984).
In regard to the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6 and
7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lougheed in
view of Sudo and Meise, Appellant argues on pages 4 through 7
of the brief that Lougheed, Sudo and Meise, together or
individually, fail to teach or suggest detecting errors in
each of the colors, supplying correction signals on the basis
of a combination of these defects, and correcting the deviant
value on the basis of
the correction signal for each color. In particular,
Appellant points out that the only reference to the
combination of signals from two different imagers is taught in
Meise. However, Appellant submits that Meise does not examine
the outputs from the imagers, nor does Meise examine the pixel
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007