Appeal 2007-1809
Application 09/774,013
First, images obtained from a film scanner could be susceptible to blurring
due to a variety of factors including, among other things, the very factors
indicated by Yajima (e.g., inferior imaging equipment and operating
conditions). See Yajima, col. 1, ll. 14-21. Thus, enhancing the edges of the
images obtained from Scans A and B in Stavely would minimize blurring – a
benefit that would, in our view, only enhance Stavely’s image defect
correction. Among other things, such enhancement would more clearly and
accurately define the boundaries of respective image areas, including
defective areas to be corrected.
Appellant’s argument that such enhancement would emphasize low-
intensity points and noise in the infrared scan “to an unignorable level” is
merely speculative and lacks evidentiary support. It is well settled that mere
lawyer’s arguments and conclusory statements, which are unsupported by
factual evidence, are entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116
F.3d 1465, 1470, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re De Blauwe,
736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
In any event, even if we assume, without deciding, that enhancing an
image’s edges could emphasize certain lower-intensity points and noise in
and around an image’s boundary region, such emphasis would not
necessarily result in an outright failure to limit image correction to larger
features in Stavely as Appellant suggests. Skilled artisans would recognize
that the degree of edge enhancement would be dependent, at least in part,
upon the particular resolution desired. In our view, the skilled artisan would
readily adjust the appropriate enhancement parameters to provide a
resolution that would enhance the image’s edges, yet not sacrifice the
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013