Appeal No. 2005-0651
Application 09/826,486
II. Whether the Rejection of Claim 9 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
is proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the
particular art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art the invention as set forth in claim 9. Accordingly, we
affirm.
With respect to dependent claim 9, Appellant argues at page
9 of the brief that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be
motivated to modify the combination of Hundt’s and Hattori
further in view of Maurinus. Further, Appellant argues, “[t]he
Examiner cannot simply find any reference that includes a pixel
defect map and assert that it would have been obvious to combine
that reference with Hundt’s device. We find Appellant’s argument
unpersuasive.
We have reviewed the Maurinus reference and find that
Appellant has greatly oversimplified the teachings therein. We
find that in addition to teaching a pixel defect map, Maurinus
also teaches throughout (e.g. col. 6, lines 11-13) that such a
pixel defect map can be used to improve image processing in image
capture systems. We find that this is more than sufficient
motivation to modify the image processing system as taught by
Hundt and Hattori. Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007