Appeal No. 2006-3221
Application No. 09/955,457
Applicant respectfully notes that the "regions" depicted in Figure 4 of Nishimura et al.
are not regions an entire photograph. Nishimura's Figure 4 is not a map of a scene or photograph,
but is an abstract construct for categorizing a particular scene based on measurements of the
subject illumination and a background distance. A particular location in the “map” of Nishimura
et al. does not correspond to a particular location in a scene, but indicates a characteristic of the
entire scene. (Nishimura et al, column 5 lines 18-51, column 2 lines 54-62, and Figure 4) [Br. 4].
We agree with Appellants that Nishimura does not teach or fairly suggest selectively
adjusting the brightness of regions of the photograph based on the distance information which
was determined from the camera to plural objects in a scene. Therefore, Nishimura would have
to teach measuring multiple distances within a single photograph and selectively adjusting plural
regions within the single photograph. Here, we Examiner has not shown where Nishimura
teaches all of the limitations in independent claim 1.
The Examiner maintains that:
the Nishimura reference does selectively adjust the brightness of regions of the
photograph. Since the regions are not specifically defined in claims 1, 7 and 14, the
examiner is interpreting this limitation to mean that the brightness is selectively adjusted
based on distance information, and that the regions include the entire image. Therefore,
in the Nishimura reference, the brightness of the "regions" (i.e. the entire image) is
adjusted based on the distance information (column 5, lines 33-48) (Answer, pp. 14-15).
We cannot agree with the Examiner’s interpretation since the claim expressly requires
more than a single region such as the entire photograph. Therefore, we find the Examiner’s
interpretation to be unreasonable, and we cannot sustain the rejection of independent claim 1.
We find similar limitations in independent claims 7 and 14 which the Examiner has not shown
in the express teachings of Nishimura or provided a convincing line of reasoning why it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art at the time of the invention.
Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection of independent claims 7 and 14.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007