Appeal No. 2006-1378
Application No. 09/845,852
have nothing to do with the claimed invention [brief, page 3]. The examiner responds
that image pixels are
actually photosensors, and that under this interpretation, the identification of all pixels in
Palcic meets the claimed invention [answer, pages 5-6]. Appellant responds that the
examiner has adopted a definition of “physically corresponding to” that is inconsistent
with the common definition of the term and with the specification. Appellant asserts that
physical correspondence requires a same physical relationship to the particular
photosensor, such as same row, same column, etc. [reply brief, page 2].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 3 for the reasons argued by
appellant in the briefs. We agree with appellant that the determination of image pixel
values for all pixels in an image does not meet the specific recitations of claim 3. We
fail to see how the determination of all pixel values in an image meets the recitation that
the data for a particular photosensor physically corresponds to that photosensor in all
line-arrays in the photosensor assembly other than the particular line-array of
photosensors.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007