Appeal 2007-1809
Application 09/774,013
image in part (i.e., one line at a time) to ultimately obtain an actual image as
claimed.
“Preprocessing” as claimed is fully met by the processing in Stavely
associated with Scan B (i.e., at least the identification of defects discussed
previously). Significantly, in the line-by-line mode, this “preprocessing”
step associated with Scan B – like Scan A – occurs every line of the image.
But nothing in the claim precludes the image that is read photoelectrically
during the preprocessing step to be the entire image. That is, the claim does
not preclude the “defective image” corresponding to the image of the
particular line that is scanned via Scan B, but the photoelectrically-read
image corresponding to the entire image (i.e., all lines read by Scan A).
In this sense, preprocessing on the defective image (i.e., processing of
a line via Scan B) would be performed, at least incrementally, while reading
the entire image photoelectrically. The scope and breadth of independent
claim 1 simply does not preclude this reasonable interpretation. Moreover,
with respect to dependent claim 2, preprocessing for a particular line in the
line-by-line mode would be complete prior to the time the actual entire
image is obtained.
For at least these reasons, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1 and dependent claim 2. We will also sustain the
rejection of claims 3, 6, 12, 14, 15, 19, 21, and 22 which are grouped with
independent claim 1.
Claims 4, 5, 8, and 10
Regarding claims 4, 5, 8, and 10, Appellant contends that the
Examiner improperly referred to the same aspect of Stavely (i.e., the image
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013