Appeal No. 2004-1134
Application No. 09/928,204
appellant’s parallel/serial converter (answer, pages 5-6).2
Since the examiner’s finding is reasonable and has not been
challenged by the appellant, we accept it as fact. See In re
Kunzmann, 326 F.2d 424, 425 n.3, 140 USPQ 235, 236 n.3 (CCPA
1964).
The appellant argues that if Suzuki’s imaging unit had a
parallel/serial converter, there would be only one output from
the imaging unit rather than the three outputs shown in figures
1 and 3 (brief, page 5). One of ordinary skill in the art would
have considered the three lines shown in figures 1 and 3 to be
coming from the horizontal shift register when Suzuki’s imaging
unit is a CCD.
The appellant argues that there is no indication that the
gain adjustment by Suzuki’s signal processor is for brightness
compensation (brief, page 5). The appellant indicates that
“brightness compensation” and “gain control” have the same
meaning (specification, page 4, lines 12-13). Hence, the record
2 This finding is supported by “Devices Working Principles -
Working Principles of CCD camera” 1-4, at:
http://murray.newcastle.edu.au/users/students/2000/c9700402/AlanW
eb/DeviceWorkingPrinciples.htm, a copy of which is provided to
the appellant with this decision.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007