Appeal No. 2000-1735
Application No. 08/780,930
calculation means at column 8, lines 41-61.
For their part, appellants contend that Hashimoto is much different than the instant
claimed invention in that they are not even directed to the same problem. That is, while
Hashimoto is concerned with reducing artifacts, caused by optical noise and Moire
patterns in an image, the instant invention is concerned with coloration errors, such as
those caused by image areas that are not as dark as they should be. While appellants’
observation appears to be accurate, it is unclear how this is relevant to the instant claimed
subject matter since there is nothing recited by the instant claims regarding correction of
coloration errors.
Appellants also spend considerable time in the briefs arguing how the instant
invention provides for proper “optical black level” in both the normal and quadruplicated
modes. However, we find nothing in the instant claims reciting a “quadruplicated” mode or
an “optical black level.” Arguments not directed to claimed limitations are not persuasive.
Nevertheless, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-7 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 because, in our view, the examiner has not established a prima facie case of
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007