Appeal No. 2006-0830
Application No. 09/911,954
filtering technique is an image with color components or a color
component. To the extent appellant argues that the claim requires
only a single (i.e., “an”) output color component, we agree with
the examiner that the claim is open ended (“comprising”) and is not
limited to a single output color component. Sobol definitely
discloses at least “an output color component” and maybe more than
one component which is not precluded by the instant claim language.
Similarly, we are not persuaded by appellant’s argument anent
a claimed single (i.e., “a”) pixel. Perhaps Sobol discloses
examining color components of more than a single pixel in an image,
but we do not find this precluded by the instant claim language.
Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of independent
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Appellant also argues, with regard to claims 4-20, 22-24, and
27, that Sobol “does not describe processing multiple color
components of a pixel with a matrix as the process is defined in
Applicant’s specification” (reply brief-page 4 - emphasis added),
but we cannot read limitations from the specification into the
application claims. In re Winkhaus, 527 F.2d 637, 188 USPQ 129
(CCPA 1975). The claim language is not in means-plus-function or
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007