Ex Parte Kojima et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 31, 2017

13188680 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/188,680 07/22/2011 Kazuaki Kojima 08228/174001 8699
22511 7590 09/05/2017
O SH ATT ANfi T I P
EXAMINER
TWO HOUSTON CENTER HABIB, IRFAN
909 FANNIN, SUITE 3500
HOUSTON, TX 77010 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2485
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/05/2017 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
docketing@oshaliang.com
hathaway@oshaliang.com
escobedo @ oshaliang. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KAZUAKI KOJIMA, TAKASHI TANIMOTO,
and TAKAYUKI SATO
Appeal 2017-005697
Application 13/188,680
Technology Center 2400
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, LARRY J. HUME, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final
Rejection of claims 4—9. Claims 1—3 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal 2017-005697
Application 13/188,680
The Invention
Appellants’ claimed invention relates to “a white balance adjustment
method for displaying an infrared light image and an RGB image
simultaneously.” Spec. 12.
Illustrative Claim
4. A method of displaying a captured image comprising
emitting infrared light of a predetermined wavelength to
an object;
removing reflection light of the predetermined wavelength
emitted from the object;
receiving infrared light of a predetermined wavelength
that is different from the emitted infrared light of the
predetermined wavelength;
[LI] adjusting white balance of an image output from a
camera to show the received infrared light as white;
[L2] emitting white visible light to the object from an RGB
light source;
receiving visible light emitted from the object;
[L3] adjusting the intensity of the RGB light source for
each of R, G, and B, thereby adjusting white balance of a
captured image;
[L4] emitting both of the infrared light of the
predetermined wavelength and the visible light in which the
white balance is adjusted; and
removing the infrared light of the predetermined
wavelength emitted to the object, thereby obtaining a captured
image.
(Lettered limitations are contested—dispositive limitation L3 in bold.)
2
Appeal 2017-005697
Application 13/188,680
Rejection1
Claims 4—9 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over the combined teachings and suggestions of Takasugi et al. (US
2009/0118578 Al; publ. May 7, 2009) (hereinafter “Takasugi”) and
Imaizumi et al. (US 2004/0186351 Al, publ. Sept. 23, 2004) (hereinafter
“Imaizumi”).
ANALYSIS
We have considered all of Appellants’ arguments and any evidence
presented. We find Appellants’ arguments persuasive for the reasons
discussed infra. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments
for emphasis in our analysis below.
Rejection of Independent Claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Issue: Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), did the Examiner err in finding
Takasugi (as modified by Imaizumi) teaches or suggests contested limitation
L3, “adjusting the intensity of the RGB light source for each of R, G, and B,
thereby adjusting white balance of a captured image[,]” as recited in
independent claim 4?
The Examiner finds Takasugi’s RGB filter 228, placed after the light
source (Fig. 34, lamp 224), teaches limitation L3 of claim 4: “adjusting the
intensity of the RGB light source for each of R, G, and B, thereby adjusting
white balance of a captured image.'1'’ (Final Act. 3, Ans. 6, see Takasugi,
1 We note the Examiner copies the detailed statement of rejection under
§103 into the Answer (2-4), but only copies the heading of the rejection
into the Final Action (2).
3
Appeal 2017-005697
Application 13/188,680
Fig. 34, depicting the RGB filter 228 and lamp 224 in light source section
203).
Appellants contend:
[T]he system of Takasugi merely discloses utilizing RGB rotary
filters in combination with a light source. Indeed, the Examiner
correctly acknowledges this on page 4 of the non-Final Office
Action dated February 3,2015, stating that an “RGB filter is used
to emit RGB light which is placed after the light source in a beam
path.” (Emphasis added). While this may be true, Takasugi is
completely silent with regard to the light source itself
independently varying RGB intensities.
(App. Br. 11).
Appellants further contend:
[T]he RGB rotary filter of Takasugi is completely separated from
the light source. Thus, the light source of Takasugi is not capable
of varying R, G, and B intensities on[ly] by itself. Indeed, the
present specification specifically discusses the advantages of
adjusting the intensities at the source over having a separate
filtering mechanism. See p. 2, 1. 13 through p. 3, 1. 2 of the
Substitute Specification. It logically follows that Takasugi
necessarily cannot disclose or otherwise render obvious, at least,
the individually variable RGB intensities of the light source.
(Id.)
At the outset, we note claims 4 and 5 are the only independent claims
on appeal. Claim 4 is directed to a method of displaying a captured image,
and claim 5 is directed to an imaging device (an apparatus). Appellants
only advance a separate argument for independent claim 4. (“Independent
claim 4 is representative of the group containing claims 4-9”) (App. Br. 6).
Regarding independent claim 4, Appellants particularly contend the
Examiner has misconstrued the claim language. (App. Br. 7). Appellants
urge: “following a proper claim construction, one of ordinary skill in the art,
4
Appeal 2017-005697
Application 13/188,680
given the benefit of the specification, would appreciate that the claims
intentionally use the term ‘light source’ to mean a device or ‘source’ that
emits light.” (Id.) (emphasis added).
We give the contested claim limitations the broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d
1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
We accept Appellants’ claim construction for a light source (App.
Br. 7)—however, we note the “light source” of claim 4 is recited as a
particular type of light source, i.e., in the context of a step or act of:
“emitting white visible light to the object from an RGB light source”
(Claim 4) (emphasis added).
Regarding the RGB light source, Appellants contend:
Specifically, independent claim 4 requires, in part, “emitting
white visible light to the object from an RGB light source . . .
adjusting the intensity of the RGB light source for each of R, G,
and B, thereby adjusting white balance of a captured image.”
(Emphasis added). In other words, in one or more embodiments
of the claimed invention, the red, green, and blue color intensities
are adjusted individually at the light source itself.
(App. Br. 8) (Italics in original, bold added for emphasis).
Turning to Appellants’ Specification for context, we note the intensity
of light emission for Red, Green and Blue is described as being
independently controlled by LED drive control circuit 30:
[T]he IR light LED 24 emits infrared light of 780nm, while the
visible light LED 26 includes three LEDs for emitting red light
(R), green light (G), and blue light (B), respectively, and the
intensity of light emission of R, G, and B can be independently
controlled by the LED drive control circuit 30.
(Spec. 6,11. 16—20; see also Fig. 1) (emphasis added).
5
Appeal 2017-005697
Application 13/188,680
However, we note claim 4 is silent regarding the language
“independently controlled.” (Spec. 6,1. 19). Contested limitation L3 of
claim 4 instead recites: “adjusting the intensity of the RGB light source for
each of R, G, and B, thereby adjusting white balance of a captured
image;”
Although we decline to read limitations from the Specification into
the claims, we nevertheless find “adjusting the white balance” (claim 4) of
the light reflected back from the claimed “object” (e.g., tissue under
examination) necessarily requires independent adjustment of the
respective intensities of the individual R, G, and B (Red, Green, and Blue)
light sources (e.g., LEDs), within the scope of the method of claim 4.
Therefore, we find, on this record, a preponderance of the evidence
supports Appellants’ contention: “In other words, in one or more
embodiments of the claimed invention, the red, green, and blue color
intensities are adjusted individually at the light source itself ” (App. Br. 8).
In contrast, we observe Takasugi implements a single light source—
lamp 224, as depicted in Figure 34 and described in paragraph 198
(emphasis added): “The light source section 203 comprises a lamp 224
constituted by, for example, a xenon lamp or the like which outputs
illumination light including visible light. Illumination light outputted from
the lamp 224 is incident via a diaphragm 225 placed on a light path of the
lamp 224 to the rotary filter 227 rotated by a motor 226.”
We find changing the intensity of the single light source (lamp 224) in
Takasugi’s Figure 34 would not change the white balance of the light
emitted to the object (i.e., the tissue, via light guide 223), which necessarily
requires individual adjustment of R, G, and B. In Takasugi (1218), the
6
Appeal 2017-005697
Application 13/188,680
white balance is instead adjusted on the return reflected image side (after
CCD (camera) sensor 230a), and is performed by white balance
adjustment element 238, also depicted in Figure 34.2
Moreover, we find Takasugi’s white balance adjustment element
238 adjusts gain instead of intensity, such that “white balance adjustment
is performed so that the signal levels of the respective color signals of R, G
and B become equal.” (Takasugi 1218).
Because the Examiner finds Takasugi’s RGB filter 2283 (depicted as
an integral part of rotary filter 227), after the single light source lamp 224
(Fig. 34), is the feature in the cited references that teaches adjusting the
intensity of the RGB light source for each of R, G, and B (Final Act. 3,
2 See Takasugi (1186):
A white balance adjusting circuit 238 provided in the video
processing block 204 of the processor 206 performs signal
processing for correcting variations in color tones attributable to,
for example, variations in equipment such as transmission
characteristics of optical systems included in the electronic
endoscope 202.
See also Takasugi (1218) (emphasis added):
For image pickup signals sent in a time-series, the selector 237
switches the respective color signals of R, G and B or G2,
fluorescence and R2 signals, and sequentially inputs the signals
to a white balance adjusting circuit 238. At the white balance
adjusting circuit 238, when an image of a white subject to be
used as a reference is picked up, gain is adjusted or, in other
words, white balance adjustment is performed so that the
signal levels of the respective color signals of R, G and B
become equal.
3 See also Takasugi (1199) describing rotary filter 227 that is configured
with a “normal observation RGB filter 228,” as depicted in enlarged detail in
Figure 35.
7
Appeal 2017-005697
Application 13/188,680
Ans. 6), we are constrained on this record to reverse the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claim 4.
Thus, we find a preponderance of the evidence supports Appellants’
argument: “Takasugi is completely silent with regard to the light source
itself independently varying RGB intensities.” (App. Br. 11). Therefore, we
find the portions of Takasugi cited by Examiner (Final Act. 3, Ans. 5—8) do
not teach or suggest “adjusting the intensity of the RGB light source for each
of R, G, and B, thereby adjusting white balance of a captured image,” as
recited in independent method claim 4, or similarly “a light emission
intensity of the RGB light source being adjustable for R, G, and B
independently,” as recited in independent claim 5 (emphasis added).
For essentially the same reasons argued by Appellants (App. Br. 7—12,
Reply Br. 7—11), as discussed above, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 4, and also the rejection of independent claim 5, which
recites the disputed limitation L3 in similar or commensurate form.
Because we have reversed the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of each
independent claim on appeal (claims 4 and 5), for the same reasons, we also
reverse the rejection of all dependent claims (6—9).
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 4—9 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
8