Ex Parte Agano

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 24, 2005

10241556 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 24, 2005)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for
publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte TOSHITAKA AGANO
____________
Appeal No. 2004-2147
Application No. 10/241,556
____________
HEARD: March 8, 2005
____________
Before JERRY SMITH, BLANKENSHIP, and NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judges.
BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-3, 5-10, and 12-22, which are all the claims remaining in the
application.
We affirm.
Appeal No. 2004-2147
Application No. 10/241,556
-2-
BACKGROUND
The invention relates to the reading out of an image signal from a solid-state
radiation detector, and transformation of the image for output to an output device (e.g., a
printer). Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A radiation image read-out method, comprising the steps of
obtaining an image signal, which represents a radiation image, from a solid-state
radiation detector constituted of a plurality of solid-state detecting devices for
detecting radiation, which are arrayed in a matrix-like form along a main scanning
direction and a sub-scanning direction and each of which corresponds to one
pixel,
wherein the improvement comprises the step of performing a pixel
density transforming process on the image signal and in accordance with a pixel
size, which is determined in accordance with a desired image size.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Coward et al. (Coward) 5,363,213 Nov. 8, 1994
Sayed et al. (Sayed) 5,693,948 Dec. 2, 1997
Claims 1, 8, and 15-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated
by Sayed.
Claims 2, 3, 5-7, 9, 10, 12-14, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claims 5/1, 6/1, 12/8, and 13/8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Sayed. Claims 2, 3, 5/2, 5/3, 6/2, 6/3, 7, 9, 10, 12/9, 12/10, 13/9,
Appeal No. 2004-2147
Application No. 10/241,556
-3-
13/10, 14, and 19-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Sayed and Coward.
We refer to the Final Rejection (mailed May 19, 2003) and the Examiner’s Answer
(mailed Apr. 2, 2004) for a statement of the examiner’s position and to the Brief (filed
Feb. 18, 2004) and the Reply Brief (filed Jun. 2, 2004) for appellant’s position with
respect to the claims which stand rejected.
OPINION
Grouping of Claims
In accordance with appellant’s asserted grouping of claims (Brief at 3-4), and
consistent with the rules in effect at the time of filing of the Brief, we will select a
representative claim from each group. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) (1997).
§ 102 rejection of claims 1, 8, and 15-18 over Sayed
Appellant argues that the “zooming” described by Sayed does not necessarily
include a pixel density adjustment. As such, the pixel density stays the same when
zooming. Appellant also submits that Sayed is ambiguous with respect to how the CCD
charges for the input image (e.g., Fig. 5) are processed to output an image to the
computer display. According to appellant, “the number of pixels may differ, but the pixel
density of the computer need not change, as the increase in pixel quantity is
compensated by image size.” (Brief at 6.)
Appeal No. 2004-2147
Application No. 10/241,556
-4-
Instant claim 1 recites that the step of performing a pixel density transforming
process on the image signal is “in accordance with a pixel size, which is determined in
accordance with a desired image size.” Initially, we note our disagreement with the
examiner’s contention, at page 11 of the Answer, that the scope of the claim
encompasses an unchanged pixel density following “a pixel density transforming process
on the image signal.” Appellant’s specification, at the bottom of page 19, defines the
process as requiring an alteration of the pixel density (or pixel size) of the image signal
from the solid-state radiation detector. By setting forth a clear definition in the
specification, appellant has disclaimed the “unity” transformation described by the
examiner.
The specification (at 19) also defines the “desired image size” in terms of the pixel
density and pixel size that is required by the output device (e.g., a printer). Since a
“pixel” is known in the art as the smallest discrete component of an image or picture,
pixel size and density are inversely related. Although the instant claims speak of both
“pixel density” and “pixel size,” we are mindful that a change in pixel size results in a
change in pixel density, and vice versa. The “pixel density transforming process” of
instant claim 1 may also be described in terms of a pixel size transformation. Appellant’s
specification provides the example of an input device having a pixel size of 100 :m, and
thus a pixel density of 10 pixels per millimeter. (Spec. at 27-28.) Consequent to a
transformation process for an output device, the pixel size is changed to 200 :m,
resulting in a pixel density of 5 pixels per millimeter. (Id. at 33-35.)
Appeal No. 2004-2147
Application No. 10/241,556
-5-
We agree with appellant that the “zooming” of an image that is on a computer
display does not necessarily require a change in pixel density (or pixel size). The pixel
density (or pixel size) of the display may be the same before and after the “zooming,”
with, for example, one pixel in the former image being transformed to several pixels in
the latter image. The transformation thus may be with respect to pixel number, rather
than pixel size.
However, we agree with the examiner that the pixel density (or pixel size) of the
computer display in Sayed is different from the pixel density (or pixel size) of the CCD
sensor chip. What a reference teaches is a question of fact. In re Baird, 16 F.3d 380,
382, 29 USPQ2d 1550, 1552 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1311, 24
USPQ2d 1040, 1041 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Sayed provides support for the examiner’s
finding.
The CCD sensor chip 18a provides a 4k X 4k array of 15x15 micron pixels, which
can be combined on chip through pixel binning operations to provide lesser resolutions,
such as an effective 2k X 2k array of 30x30 micron pixels or an effective 1k X 1k array of
60x60 micron pixels. Col. 5, ll. 9-15. The CCD pixel image data is read out and
provided to workstation 56, which includes a high resolution display 58 (Fig. 4). The
workstation includes a frame grabber capable of capturing and storing images, and
software for displaying the CCD-generated image. Col. 6, l. 59 - col. 7, l. 9.
We acknowledge the possibility that workstation 56 might automatically adjust the
resolution (i.e., pixel size) of display 58 to match the pixel size of the input signal.
Appeal No. 2004-2147
Application No. 10/241,556
-6-
However, there is no disclosure of changing the pixel size of the display in any case
(e.g., to match any or each of the five input pixel sizes described at column 8, lines 21
through 35). We consider the examiner’s inference to be reasonable and well-founded.
We thus agree with the examiner’s finding that Sayed discloses a pixel density
transforming process in accordance with the desired image size; i.e., as required by the
pixel size of the output device (display 58) that is different from the pixel size of the CCD
input device. We are not persuaded by appellant’s arguments in the briefs to the
contrary.
We agree with appellant (Brief at 6) that, when the CCD output pixel size is
different, the “pixel density of the computer” need not change. However, the argument
does not reflect an appreciation for what is claimed. The transformation is with respect
to the radiation detector image signal, rather than a transformation of the pixel density or
pixel size of the output device. Nor do we see the purported relevance (Reply Brief at 2
and 3) of the “pre-scan” or low-dose preview technique described by Sayed at column 7,
lines 50 through 63. We may agree that, in that particular application, a plurality (i.e., a
subset) of CCD pixels may be selected. However, Sayed clearly describes the “pre-
scan” as being for measurement of the magnitude of charge (and thus X-ray dose)
necessary for imaging, rather than for the imaging itself, which is the operation pertinent
to the rejection.
We therefore sustain the rejection of claims 1, 8, and 15-18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 as being anticipated by Sayed.
Appeal No. 2004-2147
Application No. 10/241,556
-7-
§ 103 rejection of claims 5/1, 6/1, 12/8, and 13/8 over Sayed
Instant claim 5 recites, as a further limitation of claim 1, that as an effective image
size of the solid-state detector becomes large, a magnification ratio of pixel density
transformation in the process is “set to be low” with respect to each of a row and column
direction. The “effective image size,” as it relates to a solid-state radiation detector,
means the read out image size. (Spec. at 31.) Appellant’s definition of “magnification
ratio of pixel density transformation” appears inconsistent, or at least ambiguous, in view
of pages 32 and 33 of the specification. It is not clear, for example, how the term
“magnification ratio of pixel density transformation” may mean “the rate of lowering of the
pixel density,” but “setting” such a ratio “to be low” means that the pixel density “is
lowered.”
In any event, appellant provides an example, at pages 33 through 35 of the
specification, of what may be meant by the claim language, wherein a pixel size of an
input signal is transformed to a larger pixel size. Whatever the scope of claim 5, the
claim must include within that scope a transforming process whereby an input pixel size
is smaller than the pixel size of the output device.
Sayed discloses a variety of pixel sizes for the input device (col. 8, ll. 21-40), with
a basic size of 15x15 micrometers, which results in the largest effective image size (4k X
4k; col. 5, ll. 9-15). The smallest pixel size is most likely smaller than the mis-matched
Appeal No. 2004-2147
Application No. 10/241,556
1 One inch equals 2.54 cm, 25.4 mm, or 25,400 micrometers. A display of 12 inches in height,
with a resolution of 1024 (horizontal) x 768 (vertical) pixels, has a pixel size of about (12 X 25,400) / 768 =
397 micrometers.
-8-
pixel size of the display.1 In the examiner’s opinion, transforming the pixels to effect an
increase or a decrease in size would have been equally obvious.
Moreover, by one interpretation that appears consistent with one of the alternative
definitions provided in the specification (at 32), the language of claim 5/1 appears to say
that as the read out image size becomes large -- and, in Sayed, the CCD pixel size
becomes smaller -- then the transformed pixel density is lowered -- and thus the
transformed pixel size is increased, as in the reference, because the pixel size in the
display is presumed to be larger than the 15x15 micrometers basic size in the CCD
device.
We will sustain the rejection of claims 5/1, 6/1, 12/8, and 13/8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Sayed. We do not hold that Sayed teaches all of the
subject matter embraced by representative claim 5/1. Sayed, however, teaches a
“transforming process” having the same input and result that is taught by appellant, with
respect to the displayed output of an image signal that is input from a CCD chip, which is
sufficient to demonstrate the unpatentability of the claim.
Appeal No. 2004-2147
Application No. 10/241,556
-9-
§ 103 rejection of claims 2, 3, 5/2, 5/3, 6/2, 6/3, 7, 9, 10, 12/9, 12/10, 13/9, 13/10,
14, and 19-22 over Sayed and Coward
Claims 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, and 14
Instant claim 2 recites that the transforming process is performed in accordance
with a pixel density of an output apparatus. Because pixel density is fixed by pixel size,
as we have discussed supra with respect to the rejection for anticipation of claim 1, we
find that the transformation in Sayed is in accordance with the pixel density of the
display, to the same extent that the process is in accordance with the pixel size of the
display. We sustain the rejection against the instant group of claims. For representative
claim 2, we need not go beyond consideration of the teachings of Sayed to sustain the
rejection.
Claims 5/2, 6/2, 5/3, 6/3, 12/9, 12/10, 13/9, and 13/10
Instant claim 5, as it further limits the subject matter of base claims 1 and 2,
recites the same limitation regarding “magnification ratio” that we have addressed supra,
with respect to claim 5/1. We sustain the rejection of the instant group of claims for the
same reasons that we have sustained the rejection against claims 1, 2, and 5/1.
Claims 19-22
Instant claim 19 recites that the process transforms the pixel density such that a
number of pixels for the desired image size is “substantially constant” regardless of a
Appeal No. 2004-2147
Application No. 10/241,556
-10-
number of pixels in the solid-state detector. As we have noted in our discussion of claim
1, the “desired image size” simply refers to the pixel density and pixel size that is
required by the output device. As we have also discussed with regard to claim 1, the
pixel size and pixel density of the display in Sayed are not disclosed as undergoing
change. We further find that, regardless of the number of pixels in the CCD device, the
number of pixels in the display device does not change, and are thus “substantially
constant.” The number of pixels in the display are, in fact, constant, unless and until the
resolution of the display is changed (e.g., from 800x600 pixels to 1024x768 pixels).
We sustain the rejection of claims 19 through 22.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1, 8, and 15-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is affirmed. The
rejection of claims 2, 3, 5-7, 9, 10, 12-14, and 19-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
Appeal No. 2004-2147
Application No. 10/241,556
-11-
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal
may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a). See 37 CFR § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ROBERT E. NAPPI )
Administrative Patent Judge )
HBB/dpv
Appeal No. 2004-2147
Application No. 10/241,556
-12-
SUGHRUE MION, PLLC
2100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20037-3213