Ex Parte Iizuka

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 20, 2003

08556427 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 20, 2003)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 22
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte TETSUYA IIZUKA
____________
Appeal No. 2002-0501
Application No. 08/556,427
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before HAIRSTON, FLEMING, and BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
A patent examiner rejected claims 1, 3-6, 8-10, 12 and 13. The appellant
appeals therefrom under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We reverse.
BACKGROUND
The invention at issue on appeal relates to capturing images at different aspect
ratios. Although television broadcasting is mainly carried out at an aspect ratio of 4:3,
high definition television broadcasting at an aspect ratio of 16:9 is becoming popular.
(Spec. at 1-2.) Consequently, video cameras "have been required to be matched with
the above two aspect ratios." (Id. at 2.)
Appeal No. 2002-0501 Page 2
Application No. 08/556,427
Accordingly, the appellant's solid state imaging device includes an imaging area
having photosensitive elements arranged in a matrix according to a 16:9 aspect ratio.
Vertical registers transfer signal charges in respective vertical lines of the
photosensitive elements to a horizontal register. (Id. at 1, 21.) In turn, the horizontal
register transfers the signal charges to an output section. A signal according to the
16:9 aspect ratio is outputted "in a usual manner." (Id. at 1.) A signal according to a
4:3 aspect ratio, however, is outputted by discharging signal charges in right and left
unnecessary portions in the image area in a horizontal blanking period. (Id.)
A further understanding of the invention can be achieved by reading the following
claim.
6. A method of outputting necessary signal charges generated in a
central portion of the image area of a solid state imaging device as an
image signal, said image area divided into three portions comprising a first
edge portion, a second edge portion opposite to said first edge portion,
and said central portion arranged between said first and second edge
portions, said method comprising the steps of:
combining a first unnecessary signal charges generated in said first
edge portion and a second unnecessary signal charges generated in said
second edge portion in said horizontal register during a horizontal
blanking period,
outputting said combined first and second unnecessary signal
charges from said horizontal register during said horizontal blanking
period, and
outputting said unnecessary signal charges from said horizontal
register during a horizontal effective period; and
Appeal No. 2002-0501 Page 3
Application No. 08/556,427
draining an excess of said mixed signal charges.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-10, 12 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over U.S. Patent No. 5,491,512 ("Itakura"); U.S. Patent No. 5,036,397
("Nagabusa"); and U.S. Patent No. 5,486,859 ("Matsuda").
OPINION
Rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or the appellant in toto, we
address the point of contention therebetween. Admitting that "the combination of
Itakura '512 and Nagabusa '397 does not explicitly . . . drain[] an excess of the mixed
signal charges," (Examiner's Answer at 5), the examiner asserts, "Matsuda '859
teaches that it is conventionally well-known in the art to use 'a drain' . . . for draining an
excess of unnecessary charges (see col. 8, lines 5-10 and lines 30-63 of Matsuda '859;
where the steps draining of an excess of unnecessary charges are taught)." (Id. at 9.)
Admitting that "Matsuda discloses a drain for draining an unnecessary charge," (Reply
Br. at 1), the appellant argues, "[n]owhere in the Matsuda is it disclosed or suggested to
drain only an excess charge from a horizontal register. To the contrary, Matsuda drains
all unnecessary charges into a drain." (Id. at 1.) In addressing the point of contention,
the Board conducts a two-step analysis. First, we construe the claims to determine
Appeal No. 2002-0501 Page 4
Application No. 08/556,427
their scope. Second, we determine whether the claims as construed would have been
obvious.
Claim Construction
"Analysis begins with a key legal question -- what is the invention claimed?"
Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1567, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed.
Cir. 1987). "The general rule is, of course, that terms in the claim are to be given their
ordinary and accustomed meaning." Johnson Worldwide Assocs., Inc. v. Zebco Corp.,
175 F.3d 985, 989, 50 USPQ2d 1607, 1610 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citing Renishaw PLC v.
Marposs Societa Per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1249, 48 USPQ2d 1117, 1121 (Fed. Cir.
1998); York Prods., Inc. v. Central Tractor Farm & Family Ctr., 99 F.3d 1568, 1572, 40
USPQ2d 1619, 1622 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). "It is well settled that dictionaries provide
evidence of a claim term's 'ordinary meaning.'" Inverness Med. Switz. GmbH v. Warner
Lambert Co., 309 F.3d 1365, 1369, 64 USPQ2d 1926, 1930 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing
Texas Digital Sys. Inc. v. Telegenix Inc., 308 F.3d 1193, 1202, 64 USPQ2d 1812, 1818
(Fed. Cir. 2002); CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366, 62
USPQ2d 1658, 1662 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).
Here, independent claim 6 specifies in pertinent part the following limitations:
"combining a first unnecessary signal charges generated in said first edge portion and a
Appeal No. 2002-0501 Page 5
Application No. 08/556,427
second unnecessary signal charges generated in said second edge portion in said
horizontal register during a horizontal blanking period, . . . and draining an excess of
said mixed signal charges." (Emphasis added.) Claims 1 and 10, the other
independent claims, include similar limitations.
The ordinary meaning of the adjective "excess" is "more than the usual, proper,
or specified amount." Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 432 (1990). Giving
the limitations its ordinary meaning, the claim requires draining only the portion of
mixed, unnecessary signal charges that exceeds the usual, proper, or specified
amount. This meaning is consistent with the appellant's specification, which discloses
that mixed signal charges "exceeding the allowable value are discharged into the drain
region. . . ." (Spec. at 13.)
Obviousness Determination
Having determined what subject matter is being claimed, the next inquiry is
whether the subject matter would have been obvious. "In rejecting claims under 35
U.S.C. Section 103, the examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie
case of obviousness." In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956
(Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444
(Fed. Cir. 1992)). "'A prima facie case of obviousness is established when the
Appeal No. 2002-0501 Page 6
Application No. 08/556,427
teachings from the prior art itself would . . . have suggested the claimed subject matter
to a person of ordinary skill in the art.'" In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783, 26 USPQ2d 1529,
1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143,
147 (CCPA 1976)).
Here, the column of Matsuda cited by the examiner discloses "a second
embodiment of the [reference's] invention according to its second aspect. This
embodiment device comprises a drain 201 and a connecting channel 203 in addition to
the arrangement of the first embodiment as shown in FIG. 1." Col. 8, ll. 16-20.
Although the drain and channel are used to drain unnecessary signal charges, we are
not persuaded that Matsuda drains only the portion of the unnecessary charges that
exceeds the usual, proper, or specified amount. To the contrary, the reference appears
to drain all unnecessary charges. Specifically, "[i]n this second embodiment, as shown
in FIG. 7, in obtaining a narrow aspect ratio image, unnecessary charges remaining
in the first horizontal CCD 3 are discharged via the drain 201 when the charges are
transferred from the first horizontal CCD 3 to the second horizontal CCD 5." Id.
at ll. 38-42 (emphasis added). "Accordingly, . . . charges unnecessary for a narrow
aspect ratio image are prevented from remaining in the first horizontal CCD 3,
allowing a narrow aspect ratio image to be obtained." Id. at ll. 46-51 (emphasis added).

Appeal No. 2002-0501 Page 7
Application No. 08/556,427
Absent a teaching or suggestion of draining only the portion of mixed,
unnecessary signal charges that exceeds the usual, proper, or specified amount, we
are not persuaded of a prima facie case of obviousness. Therefore, we reverse the
obviousness rejection of claim 1; of claims 3-5, which depend therefrom; of claim 6; of
claims 8 and 9, which depend therefrom; of claim 10; and of claims 12 and 13, which
depend therefrom.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the rejection of claim 1, 3-6, 8-10, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. 103(a) is reversed.
Appeal No. 2002-0501 Page 8
Application No. 08/556,427
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
MICHAEL R. FLEMING ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
LANCE LEONARD BARRY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 2002-0501 Page 9
Application No. 08/556,427
SONNENSCHEIN NATH & ROSENTHAL LLP
P.O. BOX 061080
WACKER DRIVE STATION, SEARS TOWER
CHICAGO, IL 60606-1080