Appeal No. 2001-1874
Application No. 09/072,758
Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us that the examiner’s finding of
anticipation is in error. In particular, while Aizawa may disclose “discrete time
processing” of image signals, appellant has not explained why the analog signal
processing disclosed by Aizawa may not be considered “continuous time processing” as
claimed. Further, we note that while instant claim 14 requires continuous time
processing capability, the claim does not preclude discrete time processing in addition
to the continuous time processing capability. That is, for all the claim requires, there
may be continuous time processing of an image signal, the processed signal sampled,
and discrete time (digital) processing with respect to the sampled signal.
Appellant argues (Reply Brief at 4) there is no teaching or suggestion in Aizawa
of the system as claimed, having both integration capability to perform integration of
photocurrent during a sampling period and continuous time processing capability to
process continuously varying photocurrent to interpret an aspect of an image.
Appellant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of instant claim 14. The
claim does not require integration of a photocurrent during a sampling period. Aizawa
describes “integration of sensing and compression” (e.g., p. 201, col. 1). Claim 14 as
drafted requires little of the “integration capability” but its presence -- i.e., only that the
“capability” is one of the characteristics of the ISA -- and so fails also to distinguish over
the reference’s disclosure of integrating sensing and compression.
We therefore sustain the rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being
anticipated by Aizawa.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007