Appeal 2007-1809
Application 09/774,013
system’s ability to discriminate larger image features from scattered low-
intensity points and noise.
For at least these reasons, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
representative independent claim 7. Likewise, we will sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 9, 11, 13, 16, and 20 which fall with claim 7.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Independent Claim 1
We now turn to the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1. As
an initial matter, our previous discussion in connection with independent
claim 7 with respect to commensurate limitations recited in claim 1 applies
equally here, and we incorporate that discussion by reference.
As we indicated previously, independent claim 1, unlike claim 7, calls
for performing preprocessing on the defective image while reading the
image photoelectrically. This particular limitation is a key point in dispute.
According to Appellant, Stavely does not disclose preprocessing while
reading photoelectrically the image, but rather performs image processing
after obtaining the normal and defective images (Reply Br. 6-7; Supp. Reply
Br. 5).
The Examiner responds that the limitation is met by Stavely for either
of two alternative scanning methods discussed in the reference: (1)
performing entire scans in succession, or (2) switching between scans on a
line-by-line basis. Regarding the latter method, the Examiner readily admits
that Stavely “is not explicit about when the timing of the preprocessing is
performed” (Supp. Answer 3). The Examiner nevertheless contends that
since Stavely is concerned with inefficiencies of performing operations
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013