Ex Parte Kaplinsky

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 18, 2008

09209982 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 18, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte MICHAEL KAPLINSKY
____________

Appeal 2008-1123
Application 09/209,982
Technology Center 2600
____________

Decided: September 18, 2008
____________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, JOHN A. JEFFERY,
and R. EUGENE VARNDELL, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

VARNDELL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 1, 3-9, 11-13, 16, 17, and 21-26, all the pending claims
in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
reverse.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention claimed on appeal relates generally to an image
correction method and system for correcting a plurality of desired colors
(Spec. 7). An error signal is obtained for each desired color (Spec. 8-9).
Appeal 2008-1123
Application 09/209,982

The error signal is determined as the square of the difference between an
expected color value (the reference color) and a detected color value (Spec.
8-9). In order to obtain the highest quality overall image, more importance
is attached to some colors at the expense of others (Spec. 10). Prioritizing
colors is achieved using a weighting coefficient applied to the individual
color error measures to determine a weighted error measure (Spec. 10).
Independent claims 1, 6, and 13, which further illustrate the invention,
follow:
1. An image correction method comprising:
obtaining expected signals for an image-rendering device
of each of a plurality of known reference colors;
obtaining detected signals by imaging a color image
array under conditions similar to those occurring during user
operation of an image sensor, said detected signals being
obtained for said plurality of known reference colors, said
plurality of known reference colors including white, at least
three primary colors, and at least two other non-primary colors;
determining an error measure, GE, RE, BE, for each of
said plurality of known reference colors, said error measure
being calculated by
(Gn' – Gc)2 = GE
(Rn' – Rc)2 = RE
(Bn' – Bc)2 = BE
where Gn', Rn' and Bn' are expected color
values, Gc, Rc and Bc are actual detected color
values;
applying a weight factor to said error measure for each of
said plurality of known reference colors to obtain a respective
weighted error measure for each of said plurality of known
reference colors; and
obtaining a color correction matrix by simultaneously
reducing the weighted error measure for each of said plurality
2
Appeal 2008-1123
Application 09/209,982

of known reference colors to obtain color correction for said
plurality of known reference colors.

6. An image sensor apparatus, comprising:
an image sensor device, operating using a color filter
array which provides color filtering such that colors transmitted
to each pixel of a color image array of said image sensor device
are converted to signals for all color components provided by
said color filtering; and
an image processor arranged and configured to color-
correct images obtained by said image sensor device according
to a color correction matrix obtained by simultaneously
reducing respective weighted error measures, each of said
weighted error measures being calculated by applying a weight
factor to a squared difference between signals seen for a known
reference color from said color image array of said image
sensor device and signals expected to be seen for said reference
color, said color correction matrix being obtained according to
at least the color white, three primary colors, and at least two
additional non-primary colors.

13. A method of correcting an image from an image
sensor including a color image array having a plurality of
pixels, comprising:
obtaining signals expected to be seen for each of a
plurality of known reference colors; and
obtaining a color correction matrix for said pixels, said
color correction matrix being one which takes into account
correction for at least the color white, three primary colors, and
two other non-primary colors by simultaneously reducing error
measures relative to each color, wherein respective error
measures for said non-primary colors are weighted such that
said color correction matrix corrects for some of said non-
primary colors more than said primary colors, each error
measure representing a squared difference between signals
actually seen for a known reference color from said color image
3
Appeal 2008-1123
Application 09/209,982

array and said signals expected to be seen for each of said
reference outputs.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references to show
unpatentability:
Endo US 6,256,062 B1 Jul. 3, 2001
Kim US 6,320,668 B1 Nov. 20, 2001
Yamaguchi1 JP 2-74367 A Mar. 14, 1990
Claims 1, 4-9, 11-13, 16, 17, and 21-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Kim in view of Yamaguchi.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Kim in view of Yamaguchi in further view of Endo.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the Examiner, we
refer to the Briefs and the Answer for their respective details. In this
decision, we have considered only those arguments actually made by
Appellant. Arguments which Appellant could have made but did not make
in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

OPINION
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the
Examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In so
doing, the Examiner must make the factual determinations set forth in
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966).

1The record contains an English translation of Yamaguchi.
4
Appeal 2008-1123
Application 09/209,982

The Examiner states that Kim discloses all limitations of claims 1, 6,
and 13 except for weighting the error measure (Ans. 3-5, 11). While
Appellant does not concede these factual findings of the Examiner,
Appellant's Briefs focus on claim limitations concerning weighting a
calculated error measure for a plurality of colors (App. Br. 9-19, Reply Br.
3-5). The Examiner admits neither Kim nor Yamaguchi specifically
discloses using a weighted error message to correct a color image (Ans. 11).
The Examiner argues that it is well known in the art to weight certain colors
more than others to emphasize them (Ans. 11). The Examiner concludes
that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to weight the
error measures of Kim based on Yamaguchi and thereby arrive at the
invention claimed on appeal (Ans. 11).
The issue before us is whether the collective teachings of Kim and
Yamaguchi teach or suggest applying a weight factor to an error measure for
each of a plurality of known reference colors to obtain a respective weighted
error message for each of the plurality of known reference colors, where the
error measure is based on a squared difference between expected color
values and actual detected colors for a plurality of colors, as required in the
claims on appeal.
To establish prima facie obviousness of a claimed invention, all the
claim limitations must be taught or suggested by the prior art. In re Royka,
490 F.2d 981 (CCPA 1974). In the record before us, the Examiner has not
provided a factual basis for applying a weight factor to the error measure for
each of a plurality of known reference colors to obtain a respective weighted
error message for each of the plurality of known reference colors, where the
error measure is based on a squared difference between expected color
5
Appeal 2008-1123
Application 09/209,982

values and actual detected colors for a plurality of colors, as required in the
claims on appeal. For these reasons, the Examiner has not established prima
facie obviousness of the invention claimed on appeal. See, e.g., In re
Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (reversing obviousness
rejection involving technologically simple concept because there was no
finding as to the principle or specific understanding within the knowledge of
a skilled artisan that would have motivated the skilled artisan to make the
claimed invention).
For these reasons, we will not sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a)
rejection based on Kim and Yamaguchi of independent claims 1, 6, and 13
or dependent claims 4, 5, 7-9, 11, 12, 16, 17, and 21-26. Since the
disclosure to Endo does not cure the deficiencies noted above with respect to
independent claim 1, we will likewise not sustain the Examiner’s separate
§ 103(a) rejection of dependent claim 3 over Kim, Yamaguchi and Endo.

CONCLUSION
We have not sustained the Examiner's rejection with respect to any of
the claims on appeal. Therefore, the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1,
3-9, 11-13, 16, 17, and 21-26 is reversed.

6
Appeal 2008-1123
Application 09/209,982

REVERSED

eld

DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP
1825 EYE STREET, NW
WASHINGTON DC 20006
7