Ex Parte Kijima

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 24, 2006

08645487 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 24, 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The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for publication and is not
binding precedent of the Board.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 TAKAYUKI KIJIMA
____________

Appeal No. 2006-2003
Application No. 08/645,487
____________

HEARD: August 9, 2006
____________

Before KRASS, JERRY SMITH, and BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRASS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-17 and 19-39.

The invention is directed to digital image recording apparatus that uses an
electronic calculation unit to perform an operation on pixels of an imaging device to vary
the pixel configuration such that no shifting mechanism is needed to move the imaging
device relative to a given optical path.

Appeal No. 2006-2003
Application 08/645,487

2

Representative independent claim 1 is reproduced as follows:
1. A digital image recording apparatus comprising:

a solid state imaging device;

a selecting element for selecting one of a predetermined image data in a format
corresponding to a first pixel configuration of said solid state imaging device and another
image data in a format corresponding to a pixel configuration different from said first
pixel configuration;

an electronic calculation element responsive to said selecting element to perform
an electronic pixel shift on pixels of said imaging device to obtain the different pixel
configuration, thereby eliminating need for a shifting mechanism to move the imaging
device relative to a given optical path; and

a recording element for recording image data selected via said selecting element.

The examiner relies on the following references:
Gray et al. (Gray) 4,872,054 Oct. 03, 1989
Tagami et al. (Tagami) 5,402,171 Mar. 28, 1995

In addition, the examiner relies on admitted prior art (APA) described at pages
3-4 of the instant specification.

Claims 1-17 and 19-39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103. As evidence of
obviousness, the examiner offers Tagami and Gray with regard to claims 1-14, 16, 17,
and 19-37, adding APA with regard to claims 15, 38, and 39.

Appeal No. 2006-2003
Application 08/645,487

3
Reference is made to the brief1 and answer for the respective positions of
appellant and the examiner.

OPINION

Taking independent claim 1 as exemplary, the examiner contends that Tagami
discloses the claimed subject matter but for the disclosure of an electronic calculation
element responsive to the selecting element.

The examiner turns to Gray, specifically Figure 1 and column 5, lines 3-26, for a
showing of a calculation made in order to perform an electronic pixel shift on pixels to
obtain the different pixel configuration, wherein the calculation results in output data
equal to a sum of values of different pixels.

The examiner then concludes that it would have been obvious to incorporate this
“well known reformatting technique of Gray” into the processing circuits of Tagami “in
order to provide the digital image recording apparatus of Tagami…with selectable
input/output formats, permitting a multitude of input video signal formats to be captured
and reformatted in accordance with a selected video output format, thereby eliminating
the need for a shifting mechanism to move the imaging device relative to the optical
path” (answer-pages 5-6).

1 Supplemental brief of December 11, 2003.
Appeal No. 2006-2003
Application 08/645,487

4
Appellant’s position is that Tagami does not teach pixel summing, either
electronically or non-electronically. Rather, contends appellant, Tagami discloses an
electronic still camera utilizing a charge-coupled device, CCD1, which is physically
moved relative to a given optical path by activation of a piezoelectric element 11 (brief-
page 12), but there is no pixel addition in Tagami.

Moreover, appellant argues that Tagami uses a memory 6 to have a capacity
capable of storing four times the pixel capacity of CCD1 to obtain a high definition (HD)
image, as compared to the objective of the instant invention, which is to convert an image
from one format to another format to accommodate the format of the selected display
device, such as a TV monitor or computer monitor (brief-page 12).

As explained further by appellant, at page 14 of the brief,
…the present invention utilizes a CCD1 of a given pixel
arrangement, and generates, at high electronic speed and from a single
image created by CCD31 (see Fig. 10), an image comprised of pixels
having a different number of pixels per row or pixels per column (or
both) relative to the number of rows of pixels and the number of
columns of pixels of the CCD31. This is accomplished through the
utilization of high speed electronic circuitry which enables the
converted image arrangement to be obtained through electronically
performed inter-pixel calculation, which totally eliminates either
physical movement of the CCD1 or mechanical shifting thereof
relative to an optical path as well as eliminating the need for operating
the CCD31 to create multiple images, and thus eliminates the need for
performing four separate image taking and storing operations.

Appeal No. 2006-2003
Application 08/645,487

5
Of course, it is Gray upon which the examiner relies for this claim limitation, but
appellant also contends that Gray has no disclosure of performing inter-pixel calculations
electronically, other than a brief reference to accumulator and multiplier circuits 20 and
19.

At page 21 of the brief, appellant points out that the instant invention teaches
electronic pixel shifting and/or inter-pixel calculations performed electronically,
independently of CCD31, and, in the example in Figure 10, after undergoing processing
by circuits 32, 33, and 34, eliminating the need for either a custom-made or an oversized
CCD.

Appellant argues that Gray lacks any teaching of such calculations, teaching,
instead, at column 8, lines 58-62, the employment of “standard algorithms to remove
pixels on a line by line or column by column basis…interpolate them to the new video
size and restore each of the interpolated pixels in a selected format in accordance with the
script.” However, appellant argues, there is no description of the standard algorithm or
the manner in which pixels are “removed and restored” (brief-page 22). Also, appellant
argues, Gray does not recognize the problems caused by different pixel size and shapes in
the monitor and CCD image device, and so cannot teach how to solve such problems.

Appeal No. 2006-2003
Application 08/645,487

6
Appellant concludes that the combination of Tagami and Gray is improper since
the principal objective of Tagami is to use a small capacity CCD imaging device and to
provide four images separated by pixel distances according to a parallelogram
configuration (see Figure 5B) and there is no suggestion of how such a capability of
generating four such images having the relative pixel shifts shown in Figure 5B of
Tagami may be obtained through the use of the highly customized CCD imager of Gray.

Moreover, appellant contends that the references teach away from each other
since Tagami requires use of a four-times normal CCD while Gray does not.

We have reviewed the evidence before us and we will sustain the rejection of
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. §103.

At page 23 of the brief, appellant admits that Tagami discloses the claimed
subject matter but for calculation element for performing inter-pixel calculation on the
predetermined image data. In fact, Tagami appears to manipulate the pixels but does so
mechanically by using a charge-coupled device and a piezoelectric element.

Gray describes a kernel processor, comprising multipliers and accumulators (19)
and (20) in Figure 1. This kernel processor is used to calculate partial fractions and is
used to compute the correct coefficient for a particular line of data. A pixel value is
automatically multiplied by the coefficient for the lines of data. Moreover, a technique is
described whereby there is an automatic generation of the sum of partial fractions to
Appeal No. 2006-2003
Application 08/645,487

7
formulate an interpolation value for pixels and this process is performed horizontally and
vertically (see column 5, lines 3-26). Accordingly, it appears that Gray does perform
electronic calculations on pixels in order to reformat, by multiplying each pixel in a row,
for example, by a coefficient.

What Gray does not appear to show, and the examiner has not convinced us that
Gray does show, is the performance of any “inter-pixel” calculations. Such calculations,
as we read appellant’s disclosure (e.g., page 26 of the instant specification), must include
at least two pixels. For example, in Figure 2 of the instant application, a pixel data H-1
of the 768-horizontal-pixel data can be calculated from the pixel data A and B of the 800-
horizontal-pixel data, taking into account the relative sampling periods of pixels A and B.
Thus, at least two pixels must be used to make the calculation in “inter-pixel”
calculations and that is the reading we give to this claimed limitation.

Tagami has no electronic calculation for manipulating pixels and Gray’s
electronic calculations all seem to be directed to the manipulation of one pixel at a time,
as in multiplying a row of pixels by a coefficient such that each pixel in that row has its
value multiplied by that coefficient (see column 5, lines 2-26, of Gray). While the
interpolation described by Gray may involve more than one pixel (see step 110,
interpolation of pixels in Figure 4, and column 8, lines 57-62), this amounts to
speculation as Gray is vague on the exact operation, describing an algorithm employed by

Appeal No. 2006-2003
Application 08/645,487

8
the interpolation step as removing pixels on a line by line or column by column basis
(column 8, lines 58-60). We find nothing in Gray that teaches the use of more than one
pixel for making a calculation to obtain a different pixel configuration. Accordingly, the
cited references lack any “inter-pixel calculation.”

Unfortunately for appellant, instant independent claim 1 recites no such “inter-
pixel calculation,” reciting, instead, merely a performance of an “electronic pixel shift”
by an electronic calculation element.

The examiner appears to us to have provided a prima facie case of obviousness by
contending that the skilled artisan, having these references before him/her would have
been led to use the electronic calculations of Gray in the system of Tagami as an
improved way to convert data from one format to another.

Appellant’s argument that Tagami does not disclose electronic inter-pixel
calculation is not persuasive because the examiner recognized this and turned to Gray for
such a teaching. While, for the reasons supra, Gray does not appear to provide for any
“inter-pixel” calculation, we would note that instant claim 1 does not require “inter-pixel”
calculation, but rather “electronic pixel shift,” and while page 26 of the brief is
inconsistent in contending that Tagami does not perform an electronic pixel shift and then
contending that Tagami does perform an electronic pixel shift, appellant’s counsel at the
oral hearing of August 9, 2006, stated that the correct statement is that Tagami does
perform a pixel shift. Accordingly, we take it as admitted that Tagami does perform a
Appeal No. 2006-2003
Application 08/645,487

9
pixel shift. Therefore, it appears that the only thing missing from Tagami vis a vis instant
claim 1 is a performance of that pixel shift with an “electronic calculation.” However, it
is clear to us that Gray does disclose an electronic calculation on pixels for reformatting a
video signal (column 5, lines 3-26). We conclude, therefore, that the artisan would have
found it obvious to employ an electronic calculation to obtain the pixel shift in Tagami as
the artisan would have understood that such a pixel shift may be obtained either
mechanically, as in Tagami, or via electronic calculation, as in Gray. The multiplication
by a coefficient of each pixel in a row, taught by Gray, is one way to “shift” pixels in that
row, but, in any event, appellant admits (brief-page 26) that Gray does perform a pixel
shift, but contends that this pixel shift is performed within the electronic imaging device.
The place where the pixel shift is performed in Gray is not convincing of nonobviousness
because it is only Gray’s teaching of an electronic calculation for a pixel shift that is
important. The artisan would have understood that this teaching would have been
applicable to use for the pixel shift in Tagami.

Appellant’s argument that Gray does not recognize the problems caused by
different pixel size and shapes in the monitor and CCD image device, and so cannot teach
how to solve such problems, is not persuasive. Both Tagami and Gray are concerned
with converting formats of image data and they both suggest to the artisan that the image
should be reformatted in order to conform to another format specification. It is the same
type of problem with which appellant is concerned.

Appeal No. 2006-2003
Application 08/645,487

10
We also do not agree with appellant’s argument anent the combination being
improper. It appears that appellant is concerned with a bodily incorporation of the
teachings of Gray into Tagami by focusing on Tagami’s four images separated by pixel
distances according to a parallelogram configuration (see Figure 5B) and contending that
there is no suggestion of how such a capability of generating four such images having the
relative pixel shifts shown in Figure 5B of Tagami may be obtained through the use of
the highly customized CCD imager of Gray.

The test of obviousness is not whether elements of one reference may be bodily
incorporated into elements of a secondary reference, but rather what the teachings of
these references would have suggested to the skilled artisan. We find that the artisan
viewing the totality of these teachings would have been led to employ an electronic
calculation, as described by Gray, in the Tagami system, rather than use the slower
mechanical movement via piezoelectric elements described in Tagami, in order to shift
pixels.

Based on appellant’s statement regarding claims 2-5, 11, 14, and 16, at page 27 of
the brief, these claims will fall with independent claim 1. Thus, we will also sustain the
rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. §103.

Appeal No. 2006-2003
Application 08/645,487

11
While appellant does argue (brief-page 27) that claims 4 and 5 further distinguish
over the applied references in that Gray fails to teach an arrangement in which both
horizontal and vertical formats may be changed, Gray being limited to teaching pixel
shifting in only one direction, we disagree. Column 5, lines 25-26, in Gray clearly
disclose reformatting in both a horizontal and vertical direction.

We will not sustain the rejection of independent claim 6, 17, and 24, or of claims
7-10, 12, 19-21, 23, 28, and 37, dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. §103, because these
independent claims all recite “performing inter-pixel calculation.” As explained supra,
neither of the applied references describes such inter-pixel calculations.

As per claim 13, appellant merely states (brief-page 29) that an output to the
monitor being a pseudo-moving image is neither taught nor remotely suggested by either
Tagami or Gray. This is not persuasive in view of the examiner’s rationale (answer-page
4), pointing out, in Tagami, “a monitor element 104 for checking the framing condition
of image data 8 to be recorded on the recording element 9, wherein an image output to
the monitor element 104 is pseudo moving image data (e.g. Fig. 81). The examiner’s
view does not seem unreasonable to us and appellant has offered no argument indicative
of any error in the examiner’s rationale. Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of
claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. §103.

Appeal No. 2006-2003
Application 08/645,487

12
Similarly, the examiner has pointed out, at page 5 of the answer, how the
elements of claims 14 and 16 are deemed to be taught by the applied references, and the
only response by appellant, rather than point out any errors in the examiner’s rationale, is
to recite the claim elements and state that these elements are “neither taught nor remotely
suggested by either Tagami or Gray” (brief-page 29). These are not convincing
arguments to us as to why the examiner’s apparently reasonable rationale is in error.
Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claims 14 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. §103.

With regard to independent claim 25, the examiner employed similar reasoning as
applied to claim 1, in order to reject the claim. Appellant argues that Gray fails to teach
means for performing both electronic vertical pixel conversion and electronic pixel
conversion for converting pixels in each row (in each column) to a different number of
pixels. We disagree. Column 5, lines 2-26, of Gray describes an operation performed on
pixels in order to effect a format conversion and, at lines 25-26, indicates that these
operations are performed in both horizontal and vertical directions.

Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. §103.

We will not sustain the rejection of claims 26, 27, and 30-32 under 35 U.S.C.
§103 because these claim add the limitation that there is an “inter-pixel calculation.” For
the reasons supra, we do not find such an inter-pixel calculation performed in either
Tagami or Gray.

Appeal No. 2006-2003
Application 08/645,487

13
Claim 29 is not separately argued by appellant and so this claim will fall with
independent claim 25. Thus, we will sustain the rejection of claim 29 under 35 U.S.C.
§103.

We will sustain the rejection of claims 33-36 under 35 U.S.C. §103 because these
claims are not separately argued from independent claim 1 and will fall therewith. We
note that appellant’s recitation of the elements of claim 33, at page 33 of the brief, along
with a blanket statement that the references do not suggest these elements, does not
constitute a separate argument.

Claims 15, 38, and 39 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Tagami,
Gray and APA, with the examiner relying on APA for a teaching of a 768 x 480 format
and image data composed of pixels having a square shape whose aspect ratio is 1:1.

Appellant argues that claims 15, 38, and 39 are patentable for the reasons argued
with regard to claim 1. Since we disagree with those arguments relative to claim 1,
claims 15, 38, and 39 will fall with claim 1. Hence, we will sustain the rejection of
claims 15, 38, and 39 under 35 U.S.C. §103.

Appeal No. 2006-2003
Application 08/645,487

14
CONCLUSION

We have sustained the rejection of claims 1-5, 11, 13-16, 25, 29, 33-36, 38, and
39 under 35 U.S.C. 35 U.S.C. §103 but we have not sustained the rejection of claims
6-10, 12, 17, 19-24, 26-28, 30-32, and 37 under 35 U.S.C. §103.

Accordingly, the examiner’s decision is affirmed-in-part.

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-IN-PART

ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JERRY SMITH ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP )
Administrative Patent Judge )

Appeal No. 2006-2003
Application 08/645,487

15
EAK:pgc
Volpe and Koenig, P.C.
United Plaza, Suite 1600
30 South 17th Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103