Appeal No. 2001-1642
Application No. 09/191,310
and we will select claim 1, the broadest independent claim as
representative of all of the claims on appeal. Note In re Dance,
160 F.3d 1339, 1340 n.2, 48 USPQ2d 1635, 1636 n.2 (Fed. Cir.
1998); In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325, 231 USPQ 136, 137 (Fed.
Cir. 1986); In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991, 217 USPQ 1, 3 (Fed.
Cir. 1983). It reads as follows:
1. A method of detecting defective sensors in a sensor array
comprising:
performing an observation of an object on a sensor array
having a plurality of pixels, each pixel corresponding to a sensor
of said sensor array and each sensor generating a pixel value for
the corresponding pixel;
for each of said pixels, determining a score based on
statistical analysis of said pixel values using said observation;
and
if said score for said each pixel satisfies a stopping
condition, classifying said each pixel as being one of either
defective or functional.
The References
In rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), the
examiner relies upon the following reference:
Ebel et al. (Ebel) 5,717,781 Feb. 10, 1998
The Rejection
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
unpatentable over Ebel.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007