Ex Parte Kok et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 14, 2012

11267893 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 2012)

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.
11/267,893 11/04/2005 Chi Wah Kok 118555-158790 1528
25943 7590 12/17/2012
Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt
PACWEST CENTER, SUITE 1900
1211 SW FIFTH AVENUE
PORTLAND, OR 97204
EXAMINER
BRIER, JEFFERY A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2678
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/17/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CHI WAH KOK and SUK HAN LAM
____________

Appeal 2012-012264
Application 11/267,893
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD,
and MARC S. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1, 3, 4, and 6-24. Claims 2 and 5 have been canceled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2012-012264
Application 11/267,893

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ invention relates to converting a multicolor image, in
which each pixel only has a single color, into a full color image (Spec., col.
1, ll. 7-10).1 The invention solves the problem of abrupt hue changes in
adjacent pixels by “smooth hue transition interpolation” (Spec., col. 1, ll. 63-
66). Appellants provide a new method for interpolating which determines
the missing local green intensity value based on a known red color intensity
value by using the average red and green in the area proximate to that pixel
(Spec., col. 3, ll. 8-41).
Exemplary Claim
Independent claim 16 is illustrative of the invention and reads as
follows:
16. A digital-device-implemented method, comprising:
deriving, by a digital device, for a pixel, a first local
average color intensity value for a first color present in the
pixel, based on color intensity values of the first color present
in a first set of pixels proximate to the pixel;
deriving, by the digital device, a second local average
color intensity value for a second color not present in the pixel,
based on color intensity values of the second color present in a
second set of pixels proximate to the pixel;
calculating and associating with the pixel, by the digital
device, an interpolated color intensity value for the second color
which is proportional to the second local average color intensity
value and a color intensity value for the first color of the pixel

1 This Application is a Reissue application of U.S. Patent 6,642,932 B2,
issued Nov. 4, 2003 (which was based on Application 09/950,636, filed Sep.
13, 2001). All references made in this opinion to the Specification will be to
the column and line numbers of this issued patent.
Appeal 2012-012264
Application 11/267,893

3
and which is inversely proportional to the first local average
color intensity value; and
generating, by the digital device, a digital image using the
calculated interpolated color intensity value for the second color.

The Examiner’s Rejections
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Cok US 4,642,678 Feb. 10, 1987
Adams, Jr. (Adams) US 5,652,621 Jul. 29, 1997

Rajeev Ramanath (Ramanath), Interpolation Method for the Bayer
Color Array, Master of Science Thesis, North Carolina State University,
Raleigh, NC, (2000), pp. 1-170.

Claims 1, 3, 4, and 6-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Cok in view of Ramanath and Adams. (See Ans. 4-
17).
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 6-24 stand rejected as being based upon a
defective reissue declaration under 35 U.S.C. § 251. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.175(b)(1). (See Ans. 17-18).

Appellants’ Contentions
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of the claims, Appellants
focus on claim 16 and contend that (a) the proposed combination would
change the principle of operation of Cok because Equation 3 of Cok is
essentially similar to previously discussed Equation 4 which averages the
ratio values; (b) the proposed modification of Cok by Ramanath does not
result in the claimed language; and (c) the Examiner has failed to provide an
articulated reasoning to justify the combination (App. Br. 18-24).
Appellants further argue the patentability of other claims based at least on
Appeal 2012-012264
Application 11/267,893

4
similar reasons provided for claim 16 and on their dependency from their
independent base claims (App. Br. 24).
With respect to the claim rejection based upon a defective reissue
declaration, Appellants contend that the amendments to the claims were
made in order to overcome the Examiner’s objections based on indefinite
claim language (App. Br. 24). Appellants argue that such changes to the
claims constitute “an editorial ‘error’ and not an error ‘under 25 U.S.C.
251’,” and therefore, do not require a new reissue oath/declaration (id.).

ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, and 6-24 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cok in view of Ramanath and
Adams because the references fail to teach or suggest all the claim
limitations?
2. Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, and 6-24 as
being based upon a defective reissue declaration?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusion. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the
rebuttals to arguments expressed by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer
in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (see Ans. 18-24). However, we
highlight and address specific findings and arguments regarding claim 16 for
emphasis as follows.
Appeal 2012-012264
Application 11/267,893

5
Obviousness Rejection
We specifically agree with the Examiner (Ans. 18-21), that
Appellants’ interpretation of Equation 3 in Cok is not accurate in that
Equation 3 is not exactly the same as Equation 4 and the discussed
substitutions on pages 20 and 21 of the Appeal Brief should actually result in
the equation shown on page 19 of the Answer. We further observe that
claim 16 includes no recitation of noise or how noise component is added to
the color correction factor and merely requires deriving average color
intensity values for first and second colors present in first and second sets of
pixels proximate to a pixel (see claim 16). In that regard, the Examiner
relies on disclosure of Cok in columns 6 and 7 with respect to Equation 16
discussing interpolation of luminance values based on average luminance
values surrounding a sample area (Ans. 21).
We also agree with the Examiner’s discussion of Ramanath and
Adams and the proposed modification to include the arithmetic average
values in Equation 3 of Cok for calculating the interpolated chrominance
value based on the derived color intensity values (see Ans. 20-21).
Additionally, regarding Appellants’ contentions challenging the propriety of
combining the references and whether the combination teaches or suggests
all the claimed features, we agree with the Examiner’s analysis and
reasoning. We specifically find that the Examiner has articulated (see Ans.
21-23) how the claimed features are met by the reference teachings with
some rational underpinning to combine Ramanath’s and Adams’ teachings
with Cok. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Appeal 2012-012264
Application 11/267,893

6
Defective Reissue Declaration
We agree with the Examiner’s reasoning that amendments made to
the claims to remove the indefinite term and overcome the claim rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, constitute changes that are “more
than one of spelling, or grammar, or a typographical, editorial or clerical
error” (Ans. 23). Therefore, contrary to Appellants’ position (Reply Br. 6)
and consistent with MPEP §§ 1402 and 1414.01, the identified deficiencies
that required amendments to the claims do actually “cause the patent to be
deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid.”

CONCLUSIONS
On the record before us, we find that the Examiner did not err in:
1. Rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, and 6-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Cok in view of Ramanath and Adams.
2. Rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, and 6-24 as being based upon a defective
reissue declaration.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, and 6-24 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

msc