Ex Parte Jaspers

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 17, 2006

09372459 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 17, 2006)

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for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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 CORNELIS A.M. JASPERS
___________
Appeal No. 2006-0527
Application No. 09/372,459
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before THOMAS, HAIRSTON, and KRASS, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRASS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 1, 5, and 6. Claims 2, 7, and 10, the only other pending
claims, have been indicated by the examiner as being directed to
allowable subject matter and are not on appeal.
Appeal No. 2006-0527
Application No. 09/372,459
2
The invention is directed to color adjustment of a color image
sensor, best illustrated by reference to representative independent
claim 1, reproduced as follows:
1. A method of adjusting an n x n color signal matrix used to
multiply a column vector input color value, where n is a number of
primary colors in a chosen color space, the method comprising:
adjusting a single first color signal matrix related value to
obtain a color signal matrix adjustment; and
automatically adapting at least two color signal matrix
parameters other than said single first color signal matrix related
value in dependence upon said color signal matrix parameter
adjustment.
The examiner relies on the following reference:
Bestenreiner et al. (Bestenreiner) 4,605,954 Aug. 12, 1986
Claims 1 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Bestenreiner, while claim 6 stands rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Bestenreiner.
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the respective
positions of appellant and the examiner.
Appeal No. 2006-0527
Application No. 09/372,459
3
OPINION
A rejection for anticipation under Section 102 requires that
the four corners of a single prior art document describe every
element of the claimed invention, either expressly or inherently,
such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could practice the
invention without undue experimentation. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d
1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
With regard to claims 1 and 5, the examiner points to column
4, lines 47-60, and column 5, lines 18-27, of Bestenreiner for a
teaching of adjusting a single first color signal matrix related
value to obtain a color signal matrix adjustment; and to column 5,
lines 18-27, of Bestenreiner for a teaching of automatically
adapting at least two color signal matrix parameters other than
said first color signal matrix related value in dependence upon
said color signal matrix parameter adjustment. The examiner relies
on Bestenreiner’s “k” value, or, rather, the “common adjusting
factor 1/k” (Bestenreiner-column 4, line 41) for the claimed
“single first color signal matrix related value.” In the
examiner’s estimation, the two color signal matrix parameters
adapted would be Bestenreiner’s modified red R’ and blue B’ values.
Appeal No. 2006-0527
Application No. 09/372,459
4
Appellant argues that Bestenreiner does not teach or suggest
adjusting a “single” first color signal matrix related value to
obtain a color signal matrix adjustment. Appellant points to the
cover figure of Bestenreiner where R’ and B’ are “both” obtained in
response to a user adjustment device 7, and a “single” G value is
obtained in response to values R’ and B’. Thus, it is appellant’s
view that Bestenreiner operates in an “opposite” manner from the
instant claimed invention in which a single value is adjusted,
leading to an automatic adjustment of multiple other values (see
page 5 of the brief).
We have considered the evidence before us, including the
disclosure of the Bestenreiner reference and the arguments of
appellant and the examiner, and we conclude therefrom that the
examiner has established a prima facie case of anticipation with
regard to the instant claimed subject matter.
The claims call for adjusting “a single” first color signal
matrix related value. The adjusting factor 1/k in Bestenreiner is
applied to both adjustable resistors 9 and 10 in order to provide
for adjustment to “both” color signal matrix related values R and
B, rather than a single color signal matrix related value. While
that is true, the examiner is not interpreting the R and B values
Appeal No. 2006-0527
Application No. 09/372,459
5
as the claimed “single first color signal matrix related value.”
Rather, the examiner interprets the adjustment device 7 of
Bestenreiner as providing the claimed “single first color signal
matrix related value.” The claims do not require an adjustment to
a color signal matrix, but only to a “single first color signal
matrix related value” (emphasis added). The value 1/k provided by
Bestenreiner’s adjustment device 7 is a “single” value and it is a
value that is “related,” as broadly claimed, to a first color
signal matrix. It is “related” in the sense that it will be used
to adjust the resistor 9 or 10 in order to modify, respectively,
color signal matrix R or B. Further, in dependence on the color
signal adjustment in Bestenreiner, at least two color signal matrix
parameters R and B are automatically adapted (to become R’ and B’).
Accordingly, as broadly claimed, the examiner has set forth a
reasonable interpretation of the instant claims and as to how
Bestenreiner anticipates those broad claims. While the examiner
has set forth a rationale basis for rejecting the claims by urging
the adjustment value 1/k as the single first color signal matrix
related value, appellant has failed to respond to this
interpretation. Not only was appellant aware of the examiner’s
position in interpreting Bestenreiner’s k value in this manner at
least as early as the February 8, 2005 Office action, and could
Appeal No. 2006-0527
Application No. 09/372,459
6
have responded to this interpretation in the brief, but appellant
could have, but did not, filed a reply brief contesting the
examiner’s position which was repeated in the answer (page 3). For
whatever reason, appellant did not do so. Therefore, we have a
reasonable case of anticipation set forth by the examiner versus a
non-response from appellant as to the examiner’s application of
Bestenreiner’s k value. Accordingly, we find for the examiner as
appellant has not convinced us of any error in the examiner’s
rationale.
Therefore, we will sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 5
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
With regard to claim 6, appellant relies on the same arguments
made supra, with regard to claims 1 and 5, failing to argue the
examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to have sensed
an image in a camera.
Accordingly, we will also sustain the rejection of claim 6
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appeal No. 2006-0527
Application No. 09/372,459
7
The examiner’s decision is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection
with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a)(1)(iv)
AFFIRMED

JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
EAK/dal
Appeal No. 2006-0527
Application No. 09/372,459
8
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
P.O. BOX 3001
BRIARCLIFF MANOR, NY 10510