Appeal 2007-1733
Application 09/978,275
Appellant further contends that Vuylsteke does not teach using pixel values
including information indicating an exposure dose of a radiographic image
signal to adapt a characteristic of the filter, as recited in independent claim 1.
(Reply Br. 4.)
ISSUE
The pivotal issue in the appeal before us is as follows:
Has Appellant shown that the Examiner failed to establish that the disclosure
of Vuylsteke anticipates the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)?
Particularly, does Vuylsteke’s disclosure anticipate the claimed invention
given that Vuylsteke teaches decomposing a radiographic image into a
sequence of detail images that are filtered according to a locally estimated
amount of relevant signal and noise level present?
FINDINGS OF FACT
The following findings of fact are supported by a preponderance of
the evidence.
The Invention
1. Appellant invented an apparatus (100) for suppressing
quantization noise in low density areas of an input signal (Sin)
corresponding to low-intensity exposure in a radiographic image. As
depicted in Figure 1, the noise suppressing apparatus includes a band-
limited-image-signal generation unit (1), an index-value-obtaining unit
(characteristic calculation unit) (2), a noise suppression processing unit
(smoothing filter) (3), and an image reconstruction unit (4). (Specification
2, 3, and 27.)
2. The band-limited-image-signal generation unit (1) receives the
input signal (Sin), and generates a plurality of band-limited image signals
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013