Ex Parte Kitamura

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 12, 2003

09035425 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 12, 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for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 18
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte JUN KITAMURA
____________
Appeal No. 2003-1375
Application No. 09/035,425
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before HAIRSTON, JERRY SMITH, and LEVY, Administrative Patent
Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1 through
8.
The disclosed invention relates to iris control in a video
camera apparatus.
Claim 1 is the only independent claim on appeal, and it reads
as follows:
1. A video camera apparatus comprising:
Appeal No. 2003-1375
Application No. 09/035,425
2
a solid-state imaging element having a plurality of pixels
arranged in a matrix form, a color filter being arranged with
respect to each of said pixels;
image signal processing means for producing image information
constructed of luminance information and color information based on
the respective pixel information outputted from said solid-state
imaging element;
averaging means for averaging a predetermined amount of the
respective pixel information;
pseudo-luminance information producing means for multiplying
the averaged pixel information which is outputted from said solid-
state imaging element and is acquired before being inputted into
said image signal processing means to thereby produce a pseudo-
luminance information signal; and
iris control means for performing an iris control based on
said pseudo-luminance information signal.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Arai et al. (Arai) 5,128,769 July 7, 1992
Kondo 5,526,046 June 11, 1996
Tamura 5,999,215 Dec. 7, 1999
(effective filing date Sept. 8, 1993)
Claims 1, 2 and 5 through 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kondo in view of Arai.
Claims 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kondo in view of Arai and Tamura.
Reference is made to the final rejection (paper number 7, the
briefs (paper numbers 11 and 13) and the answer (paper number 12)
for the respective positions of the appellant and the examiner.
Appeal No. 2003-1375
Application No. 09/035,425
3
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us, and
we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 8.
Appellant has not challenged the examiner’s finding (final
rejection, page 3) that Kondo discloses all of the structure set
forth in claim 1 except for “an averaging means for averaging a
predetermined amount of the respective pixel information and a
pseudo-luminance information producing means capable of multiplying
the averaged pixel information outputted from the imaging element.”
With respect to the missing teachings in Kondo, the examiner states
(final rejection, page 3) that “Arai reveals that it is well known
in the art to utilize an averaging means and an integrator for
averaging the total of three color signals to obtain a proper
exposure (see col. 5, lines 9-12 and col. 26, lines 8-11).” Based
upon the teachings of Arai, the examiner concludes (final
rejection, page 3) that:
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
implement Arai’s teachings. One would have been
motivated to do so in effort [to] produce a clearer
picture by obtaining a proper exposure.
Appellant argues (brief, page 5) that:
The portions of Arai relied upon by the Examiner,
however, do not disclose averaging a predetermined amount
of the R, G, and B pixel signals and then multiplying the
Appeal No. 2003-1375
Application No. 09/035,425
4
averaged signals. In lines 9-12 of col. 5, Arai rather
discloses that three color signals are derived by a
detector 10 and supplied to an integrator 11. The
integrator 11 integrates the three color signals to
obtain an overall exposure amount. Arai does not
disclose the processes that take place within the
integrator 11. . . . Furthermore, there is no indication
that the integrator averages values. Therefore, the
integrator in Arai does not multiply averaged pixel data.
In reply, the examiner states (answer, pages 4 and 5) that the
integrator 11 in Arai inherently averages the three color signals
from the video source, and that the MPU 30 in Arai inherently
multiples when it outputs a correction signal that adjusts the gain
of the diaphragm controller 12.
Appellant challenges the examiner’s inherency position, and
maintains that the examiner has “failed to present a reference, or
combination of references that discloses averaging respective pixel
information and multiplying the averaged pixel information” (reply
brief, pages 2 and 3).
We agree with appellant’s arguments. Nothing in the record
supports the examiner’s conclusions that Arai teaches or would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an integrator
to average a predetermined amount of pixel information from an
imaging element, and then to use the noted MPU to multiply the
averaged pixel information as set forth in the claimed invention.
The examiner’s inherency position is equally without support in the
Appeal No. 2003-1375
Application No. 09/035,425
5
record because a showing has not been made that the integrator and
the MPU will necessarily perform the claimed functions. Stated
differently, the examiner must provide extrinsic evidence, rather
than opinion, that makes clear that “the missing descriptive matter
is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference, and
that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill.” In
re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 744-45, 49 USPQ2d 1949, 1950-51 (Fed.
Cir. 1999). Thus, the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 2 and 5
through 8 is reversed.
The obviousness rejection of claims 3 and 4 is likewise
reversed because the teachings of Tamura do not cure the noted
shortcomings in the teachings of Kondo and Arai.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through 8
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
Appeal No. 2003-1375
Application No. 09/035,425
6
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JERRY SMITH ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
STUART S. LEVY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
KWH/lp
Appeal No. 2003-1375
Application No. 09/035,425
7
WILLIAM S. FROMMER
FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG
745 FIFTH AVENUE
NEW YORK, NY 10151