Appeal 2007-1809
Application 09/774,013
serially as opposed to simultaneously (at least in part), it would be readily
apparent to the skilled artisan that preprocessing the defective image would
at least temporally overlap the process of scanning the actual image (Id.).
Appellant argues that since scanning in Stavely is performed on a
line-by-line basis, a defective image has not been read to provide
information regarding a defect on a film by the time preprocessing is
performed on a defective image while reading photoelectrically the image
(Supp. Reply Br. 6).
We will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1.
While we find the Examiner’s specific contention noted above with respect
to what the skilled artisan would ostensibly glean from Stavely
problematic,6 we nevertheless find Appellant’s arguments are simply not
commensurate with the scope of the claim language.
As we indicated previously, the entire image in Stavely may be (1)
sequentially scanned twice in two separate passes, or (2) each line may be
scanned twice on a line-by-line basis (i.e., Scans A and B occur on the same
line). In the latter case, defect calculations and image processing are
likewise performed on a line-by-line basis (Stavely, col. 2, ll. 43-56; col. 5,
ll. 6-23 and 45-65).
The line-by-line mode fully meets the recited order of process steps.
First, since Stavely indicates that the scanning order is unimportant, Scan B
can occur before Scan A. Second, Scan B, in our view, fully meets reading a
defective image to provide information regarding a defect on a film. Then,
Scan A is performed – a scan that involves photoelectrically reading the
6 See Supp. Answer, at 3.
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013