Appeal No. 1998-0292
Application No. 08/209,633
rather the entire image, which is subjected to an image mask
operation ....” The Examiner argues [answer, pages 8 to 9], and
we agree, that “claims 1 and 12 do not require the entire image
to be subjected to the mask operation. As recited in the
claims, the mask operation is conducted on gray scale values
that correspond to a morphology of an area of investigation
which is not necessarily considered to be the entire image.”
Further, Appellants argue [brief, pages 9 to 10] that “[in
Burke], [b]oth the contrast value and the brightness value with
which the image mask operation is implemented are thus defined.
In ... the claims on appeal, only one value (either the contrast
value ... or the brightness) as in claim 1 is prescribed, while
the other value is defined dependent on this prescribed value.”
The Examiner responds [answer, pages 9 to 12] that “[i]n fact,
as mentioned previously, both the brightness and the contrast
values recited in Appellants’ claims must be defined prior to
conducting the framing mask operation [id. 11].” We find this
argument to be supported by the claimed step “conducting a
framing mask operation ... as a function of a preassigned
brightness value and a contrast value”. Thus, it is necessary
that both a value for brightness and a value for contrast have
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007