Appeal No. 1996-3638
Application 08/169,681
Appellants argue that Adelson actually teaches away from making the combination suggested by the
Examiner.
The Federal Circuit states that "[t]he mere fact that the prior art may be modified in the manner
suggested by 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)).
Upon our review of Adelson, we find that Adelson is concerned with providing a single
two-dimensional image, such as a specimen, under a microscope. Adelson is concerned with the
improved focus of this two-dimensional image. Adelson accomplishes the improved focus by using a
plurality of differently focused images of the specimen all taken from the same position. Adelson is only
concerned with providing an improved image processing method for deriving a single improved focus
two-dimensional image of a three-dimensional specimen from separately focused 2-dimensional images
of this 3-dimensional specimen. See column 1, lines 6-15. Therefore, we find that the Examiner has
failed to show any reason to use Adelson's focusing method with Melnychuck's hybrid residual pyramid
hierarchy storage and display
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007