Appeal No. 96-4092
Application 08/278,363
the Examiner does not make the modification obvious unless the
prior art suggested the desirability of the modification." In
re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 n.14, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84
n.14 (Fed. Cir. 1992), citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902,
221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984). "Obviousness may not be
established using hindsight or in view of the teachings or
suggestions of the inventor." Para-Ordnance Mfg., 73 F.3d at
1087, 37 USPQ2d at 1239, citing W. L. Gore, 721 F.2d at 1551,
1553, 220 USPQ at 311, 312-313.
Furthermore, we note that Lougheed and Sudo are
concerned with a completely different problem than Meise.
Lougheed and Sudo are concerned with filtering an image
matrix. Meise, on the other hand, is concerned about being
able to use two or more defective CCD images such that the
combined CCD defective imagers produce a defective free
output. We fail to find that Meise would suggest to those
skilled in the art to modify the Lougheed neighborhood image
processing stage in order to correct deviated pixel values of
different colors based upon the interrelationship between
pixel values of all the colors.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007