Ex parte IDE et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 9, 2001

08780930 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 9, 2001)

1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for publication
and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 24
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte HIROKAZU IDE, AKIO KOBAYASHI, HIDEFUMI OKADA,
HARUHIKO MURATA, ATSUSHI KOBAYASHI,
TOMIO ISHIGAMI and YASUHIKO NAITO
_____________
Appeal No. 2000-1735
Application No. 08/780,930
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before THOMAS, KRASS and BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRASS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-7, all of the claims
remaining in the application.
The invention is directed to a digital video camera. More particularly, the camera
has two modes: a normal mode wherein all charges in the entire line produced
Appeal No. 2000-1735
Application No. 08/780,930
2
by photo-electric elements are read out through vertical and horizontal transfer CCDs to
generate the image, and a quadruplication, or zoom, mode, wherein only those charges for
a portion of each scan line are used to generate the image. Further, a black level for the
quadruplication, or zoom, mode is based on charges read out during a front portion of
each such line while the black level for the normal mode is based on charges read out
during a back end of the line signal.
Independent claim 1 is reproduced as follows:
1. A digital video camera, comprising:
a CCD imager including a plurality of vertical transfer CCDs which
read-out charges stored in a plurality of photo-electric conversion elements
and successively transfer read-out charges in a vertical direction, and a
plurality of horizontal transfer CCDs which successively transfer charges
transferred from said plurality of vertical transfer CCDs, in a horizontal
direction;
a switching means for switching a first mode that a whole of each line
signal outputted from said CCD imager is utilized for displaying an image
and a second mode that only a portion of each line signal including a front
end of each line signal outputted from said CCD imager is utilized for
displaying an image;

a first period defining means for defining a first predetermined period
at a back end of said line signal in said first mode;
Appeal No. 2000-1735
Application No. 08/780,930
We employ the same names for the applied references as do appellants and the examiner.1
3
a second period defining means for defining a second predetermined
period at said front end of said line signal in said second mode;
an A/D conversion means for converting said line signal obtained
from said CCD imager into a digital signal;
a clamp level calculation means for calculating a clamp level on the
basis of said digital signal in one of said first predetermined period and said
second predetermined period; and
a clamping means for clamping said line signal at said clamp level.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Hirota 4,856,033 Aug. 08, 1989
Hashimoto 4,910,599 Mar. 20, 1990
Koyama 5,448,306 Sep. 05, 1995
Yukio et al. (Yukio) JP 5-244490 Sep. 21, 1993
Haruhiko et al. (Haruhiko) JP 7-212657 Aug. 11, 1995
Claims 1-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness, the
examiner cites Hashimoto, Koyama and Hirota with regard to claims 1 and 4, adding
Yukio to the combination with regard to claims 3, 6 and 7 and adding Haruhiko to the1
original combination with regard to claims 2 and 5.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the respective positions of
appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
Appeal No. 2000-1735
Application No. 08/780,930
4
Focusing our attention on independent claim 1, the examiner relies heavily on the
primary reference to Hashimoto for teaching all of the claimed subject matter but for an
A/D converter for converting the output signal into a digital signal prior to performing clamp
calculations. The examiner relies on Koyama for a teaching that digital feed back
clamping is an improvement over prior art clamping systems and so it would have been
obvious to use a digital signal as the base for calculation of a clamp level in Hashimoto.
The examiner indicated that the combination still lacked the use of an interline transfer
structure imager with multiple horizontal registers and employed Hirota for such a teaching.
Appellants do not argue claim limitations regarding the A/D converter or any
interline transfer structure. Thus, these limitations are not relevant to the issue before us.
Rather, the focus of the arguments on this appeal is on whether Hashimoto teaches
or suggests the claimed switching means, first period defining means, second period
defining means and clamp level calculation means.
The examiner identifies the various claimed elements in Hashimoto as follows:
switching means at column 1, lines 60-69; first period defining means at column 7,
line 67 - column 8, line 7 and back of register ob1 in Figure 4; second period defining
means at column 8, lines 19-54 and front of register ob2 in Figure 4; clamp level
Appeal No. 2000-1735
Application No. 08/780,930
5
calculation means at column 8, lines 41-61.
For their part, appellants contend that Hashimoto is much different than the instant
claimed invention in that they are not even directed to the same problem. That is, while
Hashimoto is concerned with reducing artifacts, caused by optical noise and Moire
patterns in an image, the instant invention is concerned with coloration errors, such as
those caused by image areas that are not as dark as they should be. While appellants’
observation appears to be accurate, it is unclear how this is relevant to the instant claimed
subject matter since there is nothing recited by the instant claims regarding correction of
coloration errors.
Appellants also spend considerable time in the briefs arguing how the instant
invention provides for proper “optical black level” in both the normal and quadruplicated
modes. However, we find nothing in the instant claims reciting a “quadruplicated” mode or
an “optical black level.” Arguments not directed to claimed limitations are not persuasive.
Nevertheless, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-7 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 because, in our view, the examiner has not established a prima facie case of
Appeal No. 2000-1735
Application No. 08/780,930
6
obviousness.
Independent claim 1 does recite a “first” and “second” mode. It further recites “a
first period defining means for defining a first predetermined period at a back end of
said line signal in said first mode” and “a second period defining means for defining a
second predetermined period at said front end of said line signal in said second mode.”
The examiner relies on Figure 4 of Hashimoto to show that the “leading” line signal is
shown at “ob2" while the “rear” is indicated at “ob1,” contending that the charges at the
“beginning of the register” are used for optical black in the zoomed mode while for the
normal mode, the “back of register” charges, “ob1" are used for optical black.
We agree with appellants, for the reasons set forth at pages 7-10 of the reply brief,
that it would appear that the beginning of the scan line, based at least on the direction of
the arrows at 102, would appear to be at “ob1" while the trailing, or rear, end would appear
to be at “ob2". If so, and the examiner has offered nothing to convince us of error in
appellants’ position, then the second predetermined period at the back end of the line
signal with the first predetermined period at the front end of the
line signal would appear to be just the opposite of what is claimed, i.e., a first
Appeal No. 2000-1735
Application No. 08/780,930
7
predetermined period at a back end in the first mode and a second predetermined period
at the front end in the second mode.
Now, it is possible to define the first and second predetermined periods in
Hashimoto so that the first period can be said to be at the back end with the second period
at the front end, as claimed. The problem with such an interpretation, or
arbitrary assignment of labels, is that claim 1 also identifies the first mode as where the
“whole of each line signal outputted from said CCD imager is utilized for displaying an
image” while the second mode is identified as where “only a portion of each line signal
including a front end of each line signal outputted from said CCD imager is utilized for
displaying an image.” Therefore, while the specific terms of “normal” and “quadruplicated,”
or “zoom,” modes are not explicitly recited, it becomes clear that this is exactly what is
meant by the claim language. This is so because it is a “normal” mode which would use
the “whole” of the line signals to display the image while in a “zoom” mode, only a portion of
each line signal would be used for displaying the image because certain portions of the
whole image would not be seen when “zooming” in on a particular other portion of the
image.
Appeal No. 2000-1735
Application No. 08/780,930
8
Since Hashimoto does not teach or suggest the subject matter of independent
claim 1, and the other applied references are of no help in providing for Hashimoto’s
deficiencies, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The examiner’s decision is reversed.
REVERSED
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ERROL A. KRASS ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
LANCE LEONARD BARRY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
eak/vsh
Appeal No. 2000-1735
Application No. 08/780,930
9
MICHAELSON & WALLACE
PARKWAY 109 OFFICE CENTER
328 NEWMAN SPRINGS ROAD
P.O. BOX 8489
RED BANK, NJ 07701