Appeal No. 2006-3032 10
Application No. 09/969,040
inconsistent results, unless the frequency of lighting fluctuations is known
[id.]. Appellants note that Smith’s invention is irrelevant if the frequency of
lighting fluctuations is known because the purpose of Smith’s invention is to
identify the frequency, so that the integration time can be set accordingly
(Smith, col. 7, lines 19-22) [id., emphasis added]. Appellants further
conclude that without previous knowledge of the frequency of lighting
fluctuations, the substitution of Oyama’s subtractor for Smith’s “stitcher” will
require further modifications to the method of Smith [brief, page 11].
The examiner disagrees [answer, page 10]. The examiner notes that
Smith discloses a capture control unit that is set to capture more than one
frame of a target (Smith, col. 6, lines 28-54) [id.]. The examiner
acknowledges that the Smith reference does not specifically state that a
target may move during the disclosed capture of multiple frames [id.].
However, the examiner asserts that it is well known in the art that a target
being captured may not remain stationary from frame to frame during the
capture of multiple frames [brief, page 11]. The examiner reasons that
because the Smith reference teaches the capture of more than one frame of
a target, “motion noise” may be introduced during the capture of the
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007