Appeal No. 1998-2556
Application 08/571,044
The remaining independent claims are claims 17 and 22.
Claims 17 and 22 are rejected based on Grotz taken alone.
Since claim 22 has the same means for estimating noise
recitations as we considered in claim 1 above, the examiner’s
rejection of claim 22 must fail because there is no teaching
or suggestion of a means for estimating noise in Grotz.
Independent claim 17 does not recite a means for estimating
noise, but instead, recites details of the transfer function
of a nonlinear processing means having a coring window. The
examiner admits that Grotz does not teach transfer functions
having the properties set forth in claim 17, but the examiner
finds that the artisan having general knowledge of noise
reduction image processing systems “would have had no
difficulty” in providing such transfer functions [answer,
pages 6-7]. Appellants respond that neither “general
knowledge” nor any of the cited references suggest transfer
functions having the properties recited in claim 17 [brief,
pages 7-8].
We agree with appellants that the prior art applied by
-10-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007