Appeal No. 1998-0292
Application No. 08/209,633
to be defined before this step can be carried out. The Examiner
stresses the point by adding [id. 11] that “[t]he level and the
width of the window 32 taught by Burke are not arbitrarily
selected, rather they are controlled based on the histogram
which suggests a selected range of intensity values (gray
values) over which enhanced contrast is desired.”
We are of the view that the Examiner has met the
limitations of claim 1 as recited therein. During the
prosecution of a patent application, the Patent and Trademark
Office is required to give claims their "broadest reasonable
interpretation", consistent with the specification. In re
Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir.
1997). In our view, the Examiner has done just that in this
case, and done it well.
Therefore, we sustain the anticipation rejection of claim 1
and its grouped claim 2 over Burke.
With respect to the other group of claims, we take claim
12. We note that claim 12 is similar to claim 1. Appellants
and the Examiner have each argued claims 1 and 12 together.
However, Appellants make one point specific to claim 12 [brief,
page 9], i.e., “[i]n ... the claims on appeal, only one value
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007