Appeal No. 2004-2147
Application No. 10/241,556
However, there is no disclosure of changing the pixel size of the display in any case
(e.g., to match any or each of the five input pixel sizes described at column 8, lines 21
through 35). We consider the examiner’s inference to be reasonable and well-founded.
We thus agree with the examiner’s finding that Sayed discloses a pixel density
transforming process in accordance with the desired image size; i.e., as required by the
pixel size of the output device (display 58) that is different from the pixel size of the CCD
input device. We are not persuaded by appellant’s arguments in the briefs to the
contrary.
We agree with appellant (Brief at 6) that, when the CCD output pixel size is
different, the “pixel density of the computer” need not change. However, the argument
does not reflect an appreciation for what is claimed. The transformation is with respect
to the radiation detector image signal, rather than a transformation of the pixel density or
pixel size of the output device. Nor do we see the purported relevance (Reply Brief at 2
and 3) of the “pre-scan” or low-dose preview technique described by Sayed at column 7,
lines 50 through 63. We may agree that, in that particular application, a plurality (i.e., a
subset) of CCD pixels may be selected. However, Sayed clearly describes the “pre-
scan” as being for measurement of the magnitude of charge (and thus X-ray dose)
necessary for imaging, rather than for the imaging itself, which is the operation pertinent
to the rejection.
We therefore sustain the rejection of claims 1, 8, and 15-18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 as being anticipated by Sayed.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007