Appeal No. 2005-0439 Page 5
Application No. 09/106,994
is free to select a single claim from each group of claims subject to a common ground of
rejection as representative of all claims in that group and to decide the appeal of that
rejection based solely on the selected representative claim." Id., 63 USPQ2d at 1465.
Here, the appellants stipulate that claims 1 and 4 "can be grouped together;"
claims 6 and 9 "can be grouped together;" claims 18, 19, and 21 "can be grouped
together;" and claims 22-24 "can be grouped together." (Appeal Br. at 12.) They
further stipulate, "all claims of a particular group stand or fall together." (Id.) For our
part, we select claims 1, 6, 18, and 22 from the respective groups as representative of
the claims therein.
With this representation in mind, rather than reiterate the positions of the
examiner or the appellants in toto, we focus on the point of contention therebetween.
The examiner makes the following findings.
Elabd shows an image sensor in Figure 3 with an array 480 of pixel
sensors 484. Color filters 462 placed in wheel 460 (see Figure 2) are
used in front of the image sensor (see column 4, lines 24-29) to allow
each pixel sensor to capture and integrate the red, green, and blue
components of an image individually (see column 4, lines 50-52).
Array 480 also includes storage register 490 (see Figure 3) for separately
storing the red, green, and blue charge packets integrated by the pixel
sensors from successive color exposures (see column 5, lines 21-25).
(Examiner's Answer at 3-4.) The appellants argue, "the cited prior art does not teach or
suggest primary color component designation for integrating storage devices." (Reply
Br. at 3.)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007