Appeal No. 1999-0486
Application No. 08/633,389
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Webb, Nakakuki, and Ito.
We refer to the Final Rejection (mailed Dec. 8, 1997) and the Examiner's Answer
(mailed Sep. 17, 1998) for a statement of the examiner's position and to the Brief (filed
May 15, 1998) for appellant’s position with respect to the claims which stand rejected.
OPINION
Section 103 rejections
Appellant argues (Brief at 3-5) that the combination of Webb and Nakakuki fails
to disclose or suggest the language of claim 1 with respect to “a digital processor for
adjusting the digitized (R,G,B) signals of the image signal according to the digitized
(R,G,B) signals of the brightness signal,” the brightness signal “corresponding to the
light reflected from the test region.”
We agree with appellant that the rejection is unclear with respect to the specific
teachings of Nakakuki relied upon. In particular, the allegations with regard to
“adjusting the digitized R, G, B signals of the image signal in accordance with the
digitized brightness R, G, B signals” (Answer at 3), or “digitizing the color signals in
accordance with the brightness signals” (Answer at 6), do not appear to speak to the
requirements of claim 1.
In view of the sections of Nakakuki pointed out in the rejection, it appears most
likely that the description of the white balance adjustment circuit 2 (Fig. 1), or the white
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007