Appeal No. 2002-1670
Application 08/768,787
modes, as corresponding to the claimed pixel shifting or image
shifting methods. We find, however, as alluded to by Appellant
and as described by Shinbori that, while the operation of the low
pass filter may modify the characteristics of the image appearing
on the image sensor 307, there is no indication that the position
of the sensed image on the image sensor is altered.
We recognize that the Examiner, in the “Response to
argument” portion at page 11 of the Answer, has amplified his
stated position by suggesting that the differing rotational
positions of the optical low pass filter 304 effected by the mode
changeover operation in Shinbori would result in first and second
sequences of sensed images. While the Examiner asserts (id.)
that a skilled artisan would recognize that this production of
differing sensed image sequences is the result of differing
“pixel shifting” methods, we find the record totally devoid of
any evidence to support such a conclusion. The Examiner must not
only make requisite findings, based on the evidence of record,
but must also explain the reasoning by which the findings are
deemed to support the asserted conclusion. See In re Lee, 277
F.3d 1338, 1343, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1433-34 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007