Appeal No. 2003-0261
Application No. 09/126,203
to produce a image signal which has the infrared component removed, see page 6,
paragraph 15 of Morimoto. Morimoto teaches that the purpose of the subtraction step
is to eliminate the infrared cut filter, see page 3, paragraph 6 of Morimoto. We note that
Morimoto teaches that the two image pick up elements work simultaneously and not
sequentially as is claimed.
As stated above, we find that Fontenot teaches that the color pass filters filter
out infrared light, as such we find that there is no need to apply the infrared subtraction
teaching of Morimoto.
We next consider the rejection of claims 17, 18, 20 through 24, 26, 27, 33, 34
and 37 through 39 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Fontenot et al. in view of Yamakawa, Dillon, Sharp and Morimoto.
Appellants argue on page 1 of the reply brief that the issues for both rejections
are the same.
As addressed each claim on appeal requires sequentially providing either an
output, or filtered transmission, or signal which includes a component of visible and
infrared light energies. It appears that the examiner is relying upon Sharp to teach a
LCD shutter similar to that used by Fontenot in the embodiment of figure 6. On page 5
of the answer, the examiner states, in reference to the LCD embodiment of Fontenot et
al. shown in figure 6, “Sharp et al. confirms that a filter of the type illustrated by
Fontenot et al. in figure 6 would have significant transmission in the infrared even when
combined (see figures 4 and 5).” However, the examiner’s rejection does not provide
-11–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007