Appeal No. 2004-1134
Application No. 09/928,204
The examiner argues (answer, page 9):
In the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 3,
claim 3 requires an amplifier for white compensation
and an amplifier for brightness compensation for the
red value signal and an amplifier for white
compensation and an amplifier for brightness
compensation for the blue value signal and an amplifier
for the brightness compensation of the green value
signal. Nowhere within claim 3, it is [sic] required
to combine amplifiers 104R and 104B to perform white
compensation of both the red and blue color signals
wherein such a combined amplifier should also perform
brightness compensation for the red and blue signals
and a separate amplifier for brightness compensation of
the green color signal, as argued by the Appellant.
During patent prosecution, claims are to be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification, as the claim language would have been read by one
of ordinary skill in the art in view of the specification and
prior art. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320,
1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ
385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The specification discloses that
operational amplifier 35 processes the blue value signal both
with a factor for white compensation and a factor for brightness
adaptation, and multiples the red value signal by a factor for
white compensation and a factor for brightness compensation
(page 4, lines 31-32; page 5, lines 4-6). Also, figure 2 shows
both the red and blue signals being input to a single
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007