Appeal No. 1998-1905
Application No. 08/362,725
Rantasuo discloses a “false color” video camera. As shown in Figure 3, there are
three detector arrays 2, 3, 4. Paired filters (7, 15; 8, 16; and 9, 17) in the optical paths filter
the ambient light composed of the primary colors of blue, green, and red, along with near
infrared (“ir”), so that the light falling on arrays 2, 3, and 4 is near infrared, green, and red,
respectively. Decoder 18 rearranges the order of the signals such that green, red, and
near infrared correspond to video outputs blue, green, and red, respectively.
In light of these disclosures, we agree with appellants that the motivation to make
the proposed modifications to Dillon does not arise from the prior art, as represented by
Dillon and Rantasuo. The thrust of the rejection as stated by the examiner is to modify
elements disclosed in the video camera of Dillon such that Dillon’s apparatus becomes a
“false color image” camera. However, Dillon already provides an apparatus that utilizes
infrared light in combination with the visible green, red, and blue portion of the spectrum.
Modifying the Dillon camera to meet the terms of the instant claims would not be an
improvement of the Dillon camera, but would change the camera into something else -- the
type of camera disclosed by Rantasuo. We do not find suggestion in the prior art to do so.
On page 5 of the Answer, the examiner points to column 2, lines 43-50 of Rantasuo
as providing the motivation for the proposed combination. We consider that section of the
reference as describing advantages of the invention disclosed by Rantasuo. We do not
find anything in the text that would have led the artisan to modify the camera of Dillon as
proposed by the rejection.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007