Appeal No. 2006-0830
Application No. 09/911,954
The examiner contends that such a threshold is disclosed at
column 4, lines 24-30, wherein a value of 60 intensities is chosen,
so that “the darkest 60 intensities are not filtered at all”
(column 4, line 29). Reading the color components of the pixel is
disclosed at column 2, lines 14-25, wherein pixels are examined to
determine their relationship to the threshold. The color
components are then transformed with a matrix (filter) when any of
the color components are greater than the threshold and otherwise
the pixel is preserved (column 4, lines 24-30; i.e., pixels with
intensities below 60 are not filtered).
We view the examiner’s application of Sobol to the claim 4
limitations to be at least reasonable and appellant merely
generally argues that Sobol does not teach or suggest the claimed
subject matter without particularly pointing out any error in the
examiner’s rationale. Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection
of claims 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Similarly, with regard to claims 6-20, the examiner has set
forth a reasonable rationale, at pages 4-9 of the answer. Yet,
appellant’s arguments, at pages 9-12 of the principal brief, are
mere general allegations that Sobol does not teach or suggest the
claimed subject matter with no explanation as to what, if any,
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007