Appeal 2007-1809
Application 09/774,013
normal image, but the defective image itself is not corrected (Br. 11; Reply
Br. 5-6).
The Examiner notes that Stavely initially identifies specific areas of
the defective image as blemishes. Such a process, the Examiner argues,
fully meets “preprocessing” in accordance with the term’s plain meaning
(Answer 5). The Examiner emphasizes that this “preprocessing” in Stavely
is performed on the defective image by locating surface defects via Scan B
(the infrared scan). According to the Examiner, following this “preprocess,”
Stavely eliminates blemishes on the normal image (i.e., the image obtained
via Scan A) by processing this normal image in accordance with the
blemishes identified in the defective image (i.e., the “preprocessing” stage)
(Answer 6-7).
Appellant also argues that the secondary reference, Yajima, does not
disclose edge enhancement preprocessing performed on the defective image
as claimed (Br. 13-14; Reply Br. 7). Appellant adds that combining Yajima
with Stavely is not obvious since, among other things, edge enhancement
emphasizes sudden changes in image signals. According to Appellant,
providing such processing on the defective image in Stavely would
emphasize small scattered points of low intensity and noise in the infrared
scan “to an unignorable level.” Such an emphasis, Appellant contends,
would lead to a failure in limiting image correction to larger features of the
image (Br. 14; Reply Br. 7-8).
The Examiner responds that since Yajima specifically teaches
enhancing edges without undue influence from outside noise, providing such
edge enhancement in Stavely’s infrared scan would not emphasize noise
(Answer 8).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013