Appeal No. 2000-2184
Application 08/629,626
is completely disputed by appellant. Therefore, we do not
sustain the examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 6 and
17.
With respect to independent claim 11, appellant argues
that Yamada and the admitted prior art do not teach or suggest
the claimed step of calculating a contrast value nor the claimed
step of extracting attribute information regarding the film
[brief, pages 11-13].
The examiner disagrees with the first argument, and the
examiner finds that the high frequency components of Yamada meet
the claim limitation of “attribute information” [answer, pages 8-
9].
We again agree with the position argued by appellant.
More particularly, we find that the high frequency signals
measured in Yamada, as modified by the admitted prior art, do not
relate to attribute information regarding the film. As noted
above, there is no evidence on this record to support the
examiner’s opinion that any attributes of the film would affect
the high frequency signals of the object image itself as detected
by Yamada. Again, the only suggestion that an attribute of the
film can be used to calculate contrast values comes from
appellant’s own disclosure. Therefore, we do not sustain the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007