Appeal No. 2005-0474 2
Application No. 09/966,484
According to Appellant (specification, page 2), the claimed electro-optical device operates
to reduce moire’ or frequency aliasing.
Representative claim 1 is reproduced as follows:
1. Electro-optical apparatus comprising,
lens apparatus,
a CCD image sensor having a predetermined filter pattern of color-sensitive pixels,
and a spectrally dispersive element between said lens apparatus and said CCD.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Langworthy 4,654,698 Mar. 31, 1987
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, and 9 stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Langworthy.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, reference is
made to the Briefs1 and Answer for the respective details.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejection advanced
by the Examiner and the evidence of anticipation relied upon by the Examiner as support
for the rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching
our decision, Appellant’s arguments set forth in the Briefs along with the Examiner’s
1 The Appeal Brief was filed April 5, 2004 (Paper No. 11). In response to the Examiner’s Answer
dated May 5, 2004 (Paper No. 12), a Reply Brief was filed July 8, 2004 (Paper No. 15), which was
acknowledged and entered by the Examiner as indicated in the communication dated October 26, 2004
(Paper No. 16).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007