Appeal 2007-1652
Application 09/776,058
values of digital data correspond to the hue in Anderson, but hue in Kim is
determined by the phase difference between the analog color signal and
burst signal. Appellants conclude that modifying Anderson with Kim would
therefore change Anderson’s principle of operation by requiring a phase
difference between an analog color signal and burst signal to determine hue
instead of a digital signal (Br. 5-6; Reply Br. 3-4).
The Examiner argues that there is ample motivation to combine the
references. The Examiner adds that modifying Anderson with Kim would
not change the principle of operation in Anderson since both references
digitally process the image data (Answer 12).
Appellants also argue that the prior art does not disclose a processor
configured to process pixel data responsive to the selected image filter to
provide filtered image data as claimed. According to Appellants, Kim does
not provide filtered image data, but rather (1) provides original color data
(C1), or (2) terminates the original color data and generates new color data
(C2) (Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 5).
The Examiner argues that Kim discloses a color filter device that is
connected in parallel with color processor 117. According to the Examiner,
image data processed by the color processor is used when no filtering is
selected. When filtering is selected, however, the Examiner notes that image
data is processed by controller 211 (i.e., a processor) which provides
“filtering effect color data” (C2) (Answer 13).
We will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1.
Anderson discloses a digital video camera that can capture and display both
digital video and still images. The camera comprises an imaging device 110
including an image sensor, a computer 112, and a hardware user interface
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013