Appeal No. 2003-1375
Application No. 09/035,425
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us, and
we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 8.
Appellant has not challenged the examiner’s finding (final
rejection, page 3) that Kondo discloses all of the structure set
forth in claim 1 except for “an averaging means for averaging a
predetermined amount of the respective pixel information and a
pseudo-luminance information producing means capable of multiplying
the averaged pixel information outputted from the imaging element.”
With respect to the missing teachings in Kondo, the examiner states
(final rejection, page 3) that “Arai reveals that it is well known
in the art to utilize an averaging means and an integrator for
averaging the total of three color signals to obtain a proper
exposure (see col. 5, lines 9-12 and col. 26, lines 8-11).” Based
upon the teachings of Arai, the examiner concludes (final
rejection, page 3) that:
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
implement Arai’s teachings. One would have been
motivated to do so in effort [to] produce a clearer
picture by obtaining a proper exposure.
Appellant argues (brief, page 5) that:
The portions of Arai relied upon by the Examiner,
however, do not disclose averaging a predetermined amount
of the R, G, and B pixel signals and then multiplying the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007