Appeal No. 2003-0350
Application 08/771,399
by the Examiner could only come from Appellants’ own disclosure
and not from any teaching or suggestion in the references
themselves.
We are further of the opinion that even assuming, arguendo,
that the references could be combined in the manner suggested by
the Examiner, the ensuing combination would not result in the
specific combination set forth in appealed independent claim. In
other words, the combination of Parulski, Ozaki, Nishimura, and
Juen, would not result in an image sensing apparatus with a
filter arrangement to remove noise caused by the gain difference
between output amplifiers.
In view of the above discussion, since the Examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness, the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of independent claim 1, as well as claims 2-8,
10, and 11 dependent thereon, is not sustained.
We also do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection
of dependent claim 9 in which the Morishita reference is added to
the combination of Parulski, Ozaki, Nishimura, and Juen to
address the claimed green color interpolation feature. We find
nothing in the disclosure of Morishita which would overcome the
innate deficiencies of Parulski, Ozaki, Nishimura, and Juen
discussed supra.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007