Appeal No. 2004-1134
Application No. 09/928,204
The examiner has not established that Suzuki’s disclosure
itself would have fairly suggested, to one of ordinary skill in
the art, reversing the order of the white balance variable
amplifiers and the signal processor as proposed by the examiner.
For this reason and because the examiner has not established that
Suzuki would have fairly suggested, to one of ordinary skill in
the art, an amplifier circuit for whiteness compensation and
brightness compensation having a two-stage amplifier with a first
amplifier stage for a fine compensation and a second amplifier
stage for a coarse compensation, we conclude that the examiner
has not carried the burden of setting forth a prima facie case of
obviousness of the camera claimed in the appellant’s claim 4. We
therefore reverse the rejection of that claim.
The examiner does not rely upon Khoury or Opris for any
disclosure that remedies the above-discussed deficiency in Suzuki
as to claim 4 from which claims 5 and 6 depend. Accordingly, we
reverse the rejections of claims 5 and 6.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007