Appeal No. 2006-3032 11
Application No. 09/969,040
multiple frames [id.]. The examiner notes that the Oyama reference is
being relied upon to teach a frame-to-frame comparator (22) for generating
difference signals between multiple frames in order to eliminate the frame-
to-frame effects of “motion noise” introduced by motion of a target (Oyama:
col. 7, lines 26-47) [id.]. The examiner asserts that it would have been
obvious for an artisan to incorporate Oyama’s noise reduction device
(including an interframe difference signal for detecting flicker noise) in
Smith’s image capture and processing system [id.]. The examiner concludes
that doing so would provide a means for excluding large values of interframe
difference signals caused by motion so that these large values are not
looked at as flicker noise (Oyama, col. 7, lines 43-47) [id.].
In the reply brief, appellants further assert that it is inaccurate to state
that Oyama teaches a frame-to-frame comparator (22) for generating
difference signals between multiple frames in order to eliminate the frame-
to-frame effects of motion noise introduced by motion of a target [reply
brief, page 8]. Appellants assert that motion noise is irrelevant to Smith
because Smith describes a method of identifying and eliminating the effects
of flicker noise without the use of frame-to-frame comparisons, [reply brief,
page 9]. Appellants argue that modifying Smith to introduce motion noise in
order to also eliminate the motion noise would not be obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art [id.].
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007