Ex Parte AHN

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 13, 2016

12495641 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 13, 2016)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/495,641 06/30/2009 Hyun-Joo AHN 21537US02 3116
23446 7590 12/15/2016
MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD
500 WEST MADISON STREET
SUITE 3400
CHICAGO, IL 60661
EXAMINER
WANG, JIN CHENG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2618
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/15/2016 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
mhmpto @ mcandrews-ip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex Parte HYUN-JOO AHN
Appeal 2015-001864
Application 12/495,641
Technology Center 2600
Before BETH Z. SHAW, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 26, 28—33, 35—46, and 48—52, which
represent all the pending claims. App. Br. 8. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2015-001864
Application 12/495,641
INVENTION
Appellant’s invention is directed to an image sensor with a scaler. See
Spec. 1,11. 7—8.
Claim 33 is illustrative and is reproduced below:
33. A method of scaling image data, the method comprising:
generating, with a scaling ratio generator, a pre-scaling
ratio according to a scaling ratio;
generating, with the scaling ratio generator, a post-scaling ratio
according to the scaling ratio;
scaling original image data according to the pre-scaling ratio to
generate pre-scaler image data; and
selectively scaling one of the original image data and the pre­
scaler image data according to the post-scaling ratio to generate
postscaler image data.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 46 and 48—52 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
111 and 2 as lacking written description and as indefinite by failing to
disclose sufficient structure to support the claimed means. Final Act. 14—
21}
The Examiner rejected claims 26, 28—33, 35—46, and 48—52 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim (US 7,171,050 B2,
Jan. 30, 2007) (“Kim2”), Choi (US 2005/0062887 Al, Mar. 24, 2005),
Cardot (US 2002/0140998 Al, Oct. 3, 2002), and Miceli (US 2004/0001636
Al, Jan. 1, 2004). Final Act. 27-39.
1 In the Answer, the Examiner withdraws the rejection of claims 46 and 48—
52 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 11, but appears to maintain the rejection of the
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112 12 as indefinite by failing to disclose
sufficient structure to support the claimed means. Ans. 2.
2
Appeal 2015-001864
Application 12/495,641
The Examiner rejected claims 31, 32, 38, 39, 41, 42, 44, 51, and 52
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim2, Choi, Cardot,
Miceli, and Park (US 2005/0190270 Al, Sept. 1, 2005). Final Act. 31^13.
The Examiner rejected claims 30, 37, 43, 45, and 50 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim2, Choi, Cardot, Miceli, Park,
Acharya (US 6,348,929 Bl, Feb. 19, 2002) and Castorina (US
2004/0174441 Al, Sept. 9, 2004). Final Act. 43^14.
ANAFYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejection, and the Examiner’s response to the Appellant’s
arguments.
Rejection of claims 46 and 48—52 under
35 U.S.C. $ 112
With respect to claims 46 and 48—52, the Examiner alleges that
Appellant did not point out which specific circuit corresponds to the claimed
means. See Ans. 2—14. We address each claim in turn. Moreover, the
Examiner alleges that there are “too many combinations” to support the
various claimed means. See Ans. 3—14. We agree with Appellant that this is
not a valid ground for rejection.
Claim 46
The Examiner rejected claims 46 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as indefinite
for failing to disclose sufficient structure to support the claimed means.
Final Act. 15—16. Appellant argues that the specification discloses specific
structure that supports the claimed “means for generating pre-scaler image
data by scaling original image data according to the pre-scaling ratio,” as
3
Appeal 2015-001864
Application 12/495,641
recited in claim 46. App. Br. 9. Appellant points to Figure 6, which
discloses a circuit with inputs of original image data and pre-scaling ratio,
and an output that is pre-scaler image data. Id. Appellant also argues that
the scaling function is described in particular in paragraphs 65—71 of the
specification. Id. Appellant argues further that there is no requirement for
an ipsis verbis repetition in the specification of all claim language in exact
form. Id. at 10. The Examiner responds that Appellant failed to point out a
specific structure or specific circuit for the claimed means and that there are
too many combinations of one or more circuits in Figure 6. Ans. 3^4. We
disagree. As shown in Figure 6, the pre-scaling ratio is inputted to three
AND gates 251-1A, 251-1B, and251-lC. Spec., Fig. 6. The output of the
AND gates pass through an address shift coefficient determiner 251-2, then
through a pre-scaler address generator 251-3. Id. The output from the
prescaler address generator 251-3 and the original image data are inputted
into pre-scaler data sampler 251-4, which outputs pre-scaler image data. Id.',
Reply Br. 4.
Claim 46 also recites “a means for generating post-scaler image data
by selectively scaling one of the original image data and the pre-scaler
image data according to the post-scaling ratio.” The Examiner states that the
Appellant failed to point out specific structure or circuitry for the claimed
means. Ans. 5—6. Appellant argues that Figure 7 and paragraphs 72—75 of
the Specification disclose the relevant structure. Reply Br. 4. We agree.
Figure 7 discloses a circuit in which the pre-scaler image data is inputted
into transmission gate 252-3A and original image data is inputted into
transmission gate 252-3B. Spec., Fig. 7. Depending on the pre-scaler valid
signal (which, in the embodiment disclosed in paragraphs 56—64 and shown
4
Appeal 2015-001864
Application 12/495,641
in Figure 5, is logic low when the post-scaling ratio is equal to the scaling
ratio and is logic high when the post-scaling ratio is greater than the scaling
ratio), one of the pre-scaler image data or the original image data is selected
and inputted to the post-scaler data sampler 252-2, which in turn outputs
post-scaler image data. See id. For these reasons, we do not sustain the
rejection of the rejection of claim 46 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, or claim 51,
which is rejected for the same rationale. See Final Act. 22.
Claim 48
Claim 48 recites “a means for scaling the original image data
according to a first post-scaling ratio to generate the post-scaler image data
if the scaling ratio is greater than a reference value” and “a means for scaling
the pre-scaler image data according to a second post-scaling ratio to generate
the post-scaler image data if the scaling ratio is less than the reference
value.” We agree with Appellant that the inputs and outputs labeled in
Figures 5 and 7, along with paragraphs 54—64 and 72—75 of the
Specification, describe the claimed means. See Reply Br. 5—6. For these
reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of the rejection of claim 48 under 35
U.S.C. § 112.
Claim 49
We agree with Appellant that Figures 5 and 6 and paragraphs 56—64
and 65—71 of the Specification disclose the relevant structure. Reply Br. 6—
7. For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of the rejection of claim
49 under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
Claim 50
Appellant argues that Figure 7, 8A, and 9A, and paragraphs 72—85,
and 89-90 of the Specification disclose sufficient structure for the “means
5
Appeal 2015-001864
Application 12/495,641
for generating the post-scaler image data according to a full-color scaling if
the original image data comprises full-color data,” as recited in claim 50.
We agree. We also agree with Appellant that these portions of the
specification describe sufficient structure for the “means for generating the
post-scaler image data according to a bayer mosaic scaling if the original
image data comprises bayer color data” for the reasons identified in the
Appeal Brief and the Reply Brief. See App. Br. 14—15; Reply Br. 8—9. For
these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of the rejection of claim 50
under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
Claim 52
We agree with Appellant that Figure 3 and paragraphs 43, 49, and 85
of the Specification disclose sufficient structure for “a means for
synchronizing the post-scaler image data to generate synchronized scaler
image data,” as recited in claim 52. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
rejection of the rejection of claim 52 under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
Rejection of claims 26, 28—33, 35—46. and 48—52 under
35 U.S.C. $ 103
We concur with Appellant’s conclusion that the Examiner erred in
finding that the combination of cited references teaches both a “pre-scaling
ratio” and a “post-scaling ratio” that are generated by a “scaling ratio
generator” according to the same “scaling ratio.” We find no description in
the cited portions or Figures, regarding both a “pre-scaling ratio” and a
“post-scaling ratio” as generated by a “scaling ratio generator” according to
the same “scaling ratio.” Although the Examiner finds that in both Kim2
and Choi, a pre-scaling ratio and post-scaling ratio have an “intrinsic
6
Appeal 2015-001864
Application 12/495,641
relationship” with a scaling ratio (Ans. 14, 17, 23), this is not the same as
teaching that the pre-scaling ratio and post-scaling ratio are generated
according to the same scaling ratio. Moreover, Choi’s disclosure in
paragraph 49 and Figure 3 of a pre-scaling ratio and post-scaling ratio that
are set to be programmable also fails to teach the limitation because these
ratios are not generated by a “scaling ratio generator” according to the same
“scaling ratio.” Rather, Choi’s disclosure is merely a teaching that the ratios
are programmable.
We also agree with Appellant that the cited portions of Cardot do not
teach the disputed limitation because they do not teach that any scaling ratio
used at steps 67A or 67B is generated in response to a scaling ratio that is
the same scaling ratio used for generating the pre-scaling ratio.
Thus, we disagree with the Examiner’s finding that the cited
references teach “a scaling ratio generator configured to: generate a pre­
scaling ratio according to a scaling ratio; and generate a post-scaling ratio
according to the scaling ratio,” as recited in independent claim 26, and as
similarly recited in independent claims 33 and 46.
Claim 40
We agree with Appellant that the cited portions of Cardot do not teach
“a scaling ratio generator configured to output a pre-scaling ratio, a post­
scaling ratio, and a pre-scaler valid signal,” as recited in independent claim
40 (emphases added). As Appellant argues, even assuming that Cardot’s
“command” is a “pre-scaler valid signal,” it is not clear from the record
before us that this command is output by a “scaling ratio generator” that also
outputs a “pre-scaling ratio” and a “post-scaling ratio” as required by the
claim. Specifically, the Examiner has not pointed to any teaching in the
7
Appeal 2015-001864
Application 12/495,641
cited portions of Cardot that its “command” is output by the same
component that also outputs the scaling used by the final scaling step, and
the Examiner has not stated that such a teaching would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, constrained as we are by the
record before us, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 40.
CONCLUSION
We do not sustain the rejections of claims 46, 48—50, and 52 under
35U.S.C. § 112,12.
We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 26, 28—33,
35—46, and 48—52 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
We reverse the rejections of claims 46 and 48—52 under 35 U.S.C. §
112,12.
We reverse the rejection of claims 26, 28—33, 35—46, and 48—52 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
REVERSED
8