Appeal No. 1998-3031
Application No. 08/511,507
(figure 2, elements 151-153).” The examiner has not explained
the relevance of Shino’s planar surface lighting generator
151, intermediate lighting generator 152 and curved surface
lighting generator 153 to the disclosed and claimed invention.
Shino certainly does not teach that the lighting generators
change a property of a selected area of an input image
relative to a corresponding property of a complement of the
area in the input image.
Jackson may disclose “a perspective processing of a video
signal comprising a processor operative to create the output
image wherein the output image is geometrically undistorted
with regard to the input image (figures 1a-1e)” (Answer, page
5), but this teaching has no relevance to the requirement of
the claimed invention that an area of an input image be
selected, and that a property of that area be changed relative
to a corresponding property of a complement of that area of
the input image.
Based upon the foregoing, we agree with the appellants’
arguments (Brief, page 9) that “it is not clear how the
collection of multiple interleaved input images in Sandor
could be combined with the single image processing of Shino
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007