Appeal No. 96-4092
Application 08/278,363
values from the imagers to detect whether there are any
errors. Appellant further points out that Meise does not
contemplate different imagers having defective pixels in the
same position and correcting for the same. Finally, Appellant
submits that Meise is only dealing with known defects in known
positions and does not consider the actual signals from pixels
in the imagers.
On page 3 of the answer, the Examiner refers us to
the final rejection for the grounds of the Examiner's
rejection. On page 7 of the Examiner's final rejection, the
Examiner states that Lougheed and Sudo do not disclose
supplying the second value if the first pixel value for not
more than one color is larger than the second value. The
Examiner further states that Meise discloses a pixel
correction circuit wherein a determination as to whether or
not to make a pixel correction is based upon a combination of
detected pixel deviations from each sensor, with a correction
not being made at a given pixel location unless one of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007