Appeal No. 2000-2057
Application 08/838,791
Since we have not sustained this rejection of independent
claims 1, 5 and 8, we also do not sustain this rejection of any
of the dependent claims in this application. Accordingly, the
rejection of claims 1-10 based on Ito, Nosaki and the admitted
prior art is not sustained.
We now consider the rejection of claims 1-10 based on
Gahang and Augusti. With respect to independent claims 1, 5 and
8, the examiner finds that Gahang teaches the claimed invention
except for the feature of calculating each shading factor in the
manner claimed. The examiner cites Augusti as teaching this
particular feature of the claimed invention. The examiner finds
that it would have been obvious to the artisan to calculate the
shading factors in Gahang in the manner taught by Augusti
[answer, pages 8-10].
Appellant argues that the portion of Augusti relied on by
the examiner is for half-tone processing and not for shading
compensation. Appellant also argues that the prestored values in
Augusti are in no way similar to the shading correction factors
calculated as recited in the claimed invention. Specifically,
appellant argues that there is no preset maximum brightness value
in Augusti. Appellant also argues that the half-tone processor
of Augusti is not equivalent to the half-tone processor of
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007