Appeal No. 2003-1375
Application No. 09/035,425
averaged signals. In lines 9-12 of col. 5, Arai rather
discloses that three color signals are derived by a
detector 10 and supplied to an integrator 11. The
integrator 11 integrates the three color signals to
obtain an overall exposure amount. Arai does not
disclose the processes that take place within the
integrator 11. . . . Furthermore, there is no indication
that the integrator averages values. Therefore, the
integrator in Arai does not multiply averaged pixel data.
In reply, the examiner states (answer, pages 4 and 5) that the
integrator 11 in Arai inherently averages the three color signals
from the video source, and that the MPU 30 in Arai inherently
multiples when it outputs a correction signal that adjusts the gain
of the diaphragm controller 12.
Appellant challenges the examiner’s inherency position, and
maintains that the examiner has “failed to present a reference, or
combination of references that discloses averaging respective pixel
information and multiplying the averaged pixel information” (reply
brief, pages 2 and 3).
We agree with appellant’s arguments. Nothing in the record
supports the examiner’s conclusions that Arai teaches or would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an integrator
to average a predetermined amount of pixel information from an
imaging element, and then to use the noted MPU to multiply the
averaged pixel information as set forth in the claimed invention.
The examiner’s inherency position is equally without support in the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007