Appeal No. 2006-1649
Application No. 10/212,191
It is apparent to us that the adjustment of detector gain (step 416, Figure 4 of
Bengtsson) will reduce the scale factor effect, i.e. the number of signal counts per array
sample as defined by Appellants (specification, page 2, lines 27-28), caused by the
increase in power, which in previous iterations has caused the pixel data signals to
saturate.
Further, we find to be unpersuasive Appellants’ attempt (Reply Brief, pages 5
and 6) to distinguish over Bengtsson by calling attention to the fact that Bengtsson’s
power level and detector gain adjustments are performed in a calibration operation. We
find nothing in the language of appealed claim 1 which precludes the claimed
adjustment features from being performed during a calibration operation such as
performed in Bengtsson.
We also point out that, while Appellants assert (Reply Brief, page 4) that the
Examiner has mischaracterized the disclosure of Bengtsson by asserting that
Bengtsson discloses a system in which control adjustments are made so that power
level remains the same, it is Appellants who have mischaracterized the Examiner’s
stated position. As set forth at page 3 of the Answer, correctly in our view, it is the
“system output level” in Bengtsson which remains at a desired level, not the power
level.
In view of the above discussion, since all of the claimed limitations are present in
the disclosure of Bengtsson, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of
independent claim 1, as well as dependent claims 2-4, 6-9, 11-13, and 16 not
separately argued by Appellants, is sustained.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007