Ex Parte Kole

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 12, 2004

09928204 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 12, 2004)

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written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 20
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte MARCUS EGBERT KOLE
_____________
Appeal No. 2004-1134
Application No. 09/928,204
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before OWENS, LEVY, and SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judges.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal is from the final rejection of claims 3-6 and
refusal to allow claims 1 and 2 as amended after final rejection.
These are all of the claims in the application.
THE INVENTION
The appellant claims a color camera having an amplifier
circuit for white compensation and brightness compensation.
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A color picture camera (1, 31, 41) with a sensor (2)
including a sensor surface for imaging color pictures, which
pictures being converted into electrical signals, a red
Appeal No. 2004-1134
Application No. 09/928,204
1 The examiner relies upon U.S. 5,969,759 to Morimoto and
5,128,533 to Oguchi in support of the rejection of claims 1-3
(answer, pages 4-7). Because those references are not included
in the statement of the rejection, they are not properly before
us. See In re Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341, 1342 n.3, 166 USPQ 406, 407
n.3 (CCPA 1970). Consequently, we do not consider those
references in reaching our decision.
2
component of the color picture generating an electrical red
value signal (R), a green component of the color picture
generating an electrical green value signal (G), and a blue
component of the color picture generating an electrical blue
value signal (B), which signals are supplied to a
parallel/serial converter (11) and an amplifier circuit (3,
32, 42) for a white compensation and a brightness
compensation, wherein the amplifier circuit (3) comprises a
first amplifier (17) in a separate channel (12) for a white
compensation of the red value signal (R), a second amplifier
(18) in a second channel (14) for a white compensation of
the blue value signal (B), and a third, separate channel
(13) for the brightness compensation of the green value
signal (G).
THE REFERENCES
Suzuki 5,691,772 Nov. 25, 1997
Khoury 5,838,194 Nov. 17, 1998
Opris 6,342,919 Jan. 29, 2002
(filed Apr. 8, 1999)
THE REJECTIONS
The claims stand rejected as follows: claims 1-3 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Suzuki; claim 4 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Suzuki; claim 5 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as obvious over Suzuki in view of Khoury; and claim 6 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Suzuki in view of Opris.1
Appeal No. 2004-1134
Application No. 09/928,204
3
OPINION
We affirm the rejection of claims 1 and 2 and reverse the
rejections of claims 3-6.
Claims 1 and 2
Suzuki discloses prior art and inventive color picture
cameras having an imaging unit that can be a charge coupled
device (CCD) and outputs red, blue and green signals (col. 1,
lines 14-26; col. 4, lines 5-18). An amplifier circuit has a
first amplifier (104; 404R) in a first channel for white balance
of the red signal, a second amplifier (104B; 404B) in a second
channel for white balance of the blue signal, a third, separate
channel for the green signal, and a signal processor (105; 405)
for adjustment of gain (col. 1, lines 26-37; col. 4, lines 18-33;
figures 1 and 3).
The appellant argues that Suzuki does not disclose a
parallel/serial converter (brief, page 5). The appellant
discloses that the parallel/serial converter is a shift register
(specification, page 4, lines 2 and 7). The examiner finds that
CCDs inherently have vertical shift registers which shift their
contents in parallel into a horizontal shift register that shifts
out its charges serially and, therefore, corresponds to the
Appeal No. 2004-1134
Application No. 09/928,204
2 This finding is supported by “Devices Working Principles -
Working Principles of CCD camera” 1-4, at:
http://murray.newcastle.edu.au/users/students/2000/c9700402/AlanW
eb/DeviceWorkingPrinciples.htm, a copy of which is provided to
the appellant with this decision.
4
appellant’s parallel/serial converter (answer, pages 5-6).2
Since the examiner’s finding is reasonable and has not been
challenged by the appellant, we accept it as fact. See In re
Kunzmann, 326 F.2d 424, 425 n.3, 140 USPQ 235, 236 n.3 (CCPA
1964).
The appellant argues that if Suzuki’s imaging unit had a
parallel/serial converter, there would be only one output from
the imaging unit rather than the three outputs shown in figures
1 and 3 (brief, page 5). One of ordinary skill in the art would
have considered the three lines shown in figures 1 and 3 to be
coming from the horizontal shift register when Suzuki’s imaging
unit is a CCD.
The appellant argues that there is no indication that the
gain adjustment by Suzuki’s signal processor is for brightness
compensation (brief, page 5). The appellant indicates that
“brightness compensation” and “gain control” have the same
meaning (specification, page 4, lines 12-13). Hence, the record
Appeal No. 2004-1134
Application No. 09/928,204
5
indicates that Suzuki’s gain adjustment provides brightness
compensation.
The appellant argues that Suzuki’s signal processor receives
each signal independently, whereas the appellant’s color signals
are combined and then sent to an amplifier (brief, pages 5-6).
The appellant’s claim 1, however, does not require combining the
signals before they are sent to the amplifier to which Suzuki’s
signal processor corresponds.
For the above reasons we find that the camera claimed in the
appellant’s claim 1 is anticipated by Suzuki. Accordingly, we
affirm the rejection of that claim and claim 2 that stands or
falls therewith (brief, page 4).
Claim 3
Claim 3 requires “an amplifier (35) for the white
compensation and the brightness compensation of the red value
signal (R) and the blue value signal (B), and an amplifier (36)
for the brightness compensation of the green value signal (G).”
Appeal No. 2004-1134
Application No. 09/928,204
6
The examiner argues (answer, page 9):
In the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 3,
claim 3 requires an amplifier for white compensation
and an amplifier for brightness compensation for the
red value signal and an amplifier for white
compensation and an amplifier for brightness
compensation for the blue value signal and an amplifier
for the brightness compensation of the green value
signal. Nowhere within claim 3, it is [sic] required
to combine amplifiers 104R and 104B to perform white
compensation of both the red and blue color signals
wherein such a combined amplifier should also perform
brightness compensation for the red and blue signals
and a separate amplifier for brightness compensation of
the green color signal, as argued by the Appellant.
During patent prosecution, claims are to be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification, as the claim language would have been read by one
of ordinary skill in the art in view of the specification and
prior art. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320,
1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ
385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The specification discloses that
operational amplifier 35 processes the blue value signal both
with a factor for white compensation and a factor for brightness
adaptation, and multiples the red value signal by a factor for
white compensation and a factor for brightness compensation
(page 4, lines 31-32; page 5, lines 4-6). Also, figure 2 shows
both the red and blue signals being input to a single
Appeal No. 2004-1134
Application No. 09/928,204
7
amplifier (35). Hence, the broadest reasonable interpretation of
the appellant’s claim term “an amplifier”, consistent with the
specification, is that it means “one amplifier”.
Because the examiner has not established that Suzuki
discloses one amplifier for the white compensation and the
brightness compensation of the red signal and the blue signal,
the examiner has not carried the burden of establishing a prima
facie case of anticipation of the camera claimed in the
appellant’s claim 3. We therefore reverse the rejection of that
claim.
Claims 4-6
Claim 4 requires an amplifier circuit for whiteness
compensation and brightness compensation that “comprises a two-
stage amplifier (43, 44) with a first amplifier stage (43) for a
fine compensation and a second amplifier stage (44) for a coarse
compensation.”
The examiner argues that “[a]fter examination of the
specification, one with ordinary skill in the art would associate
the phrase ‘fine compensation’ with brightness compensation
(automatic gain control) and the phrase ‘coarse compensation’
with white balance” (final rejection mailed January 14, 2003,
paper no. 9, page 4). The specification states that first
Appeal No. 2004-1134
Application No. 09/928,204
8
amplifier stage 43 carries out fine tuning of the brightness
factor, and second amplifier stage 44 carries out white
compensation and coarse tuning of the brightness compensation
(page 5, lines 13-16). Hence, the examiner’s argument is
incorrect.
The examiner argues that “[a]lthough Suzuki does not
expressly mention the reversal of stages of the two-stage
amplifier (meaning that the first amplifier stage would control
the brightness compensation and the second amplifier stage would
control the white balance) it would have been obvious to one with
ordinary skill in the art to do so because the input and output
of the first and final stages, respectively, in either setup,
would come from and lead to their same respective locations”
(final rejection mailed January 14, 2003, paper no. 9, page 4).
For a prima facie case of obviousness to be established, the
teachings from the prior art itself must appear to have suggested
the claimed subject matter to one of ordinary skill in the art.
See In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA
1976). The mere fact that the prior art could be modified as
proposed by the examiner is not sufficient to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260,
1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Appeal No. 2004-1134
Application No. 09/928,204
9
The examiner has not established that Suzuki’s disclosure
itself would have fairly suggested, to one of ordinary skill in
the art, reversing the order of the white balance variable
amplifiers and the signal processor as proposed by the examiner.
For this reason and because the examiner has not established that
Suzuki would have fairly suggested, to one of ordinary skill in
the art, an amplifier circuit for whiteness compensation and
brightness compensation having a two-stage amplifier with a first
amplifier stage for a fine compensation and a second amplifier
stage for a coarse compensation, we conclude that the examiner
has not carried the burden of setting forth a prima facie case of
obviousness of the camera claimed in the appellant’s claim 4. We
therefore reverse the rejection of that claim.
The examiner does not rely upon Khoury or Opris for any
disclosure that remedies the above-discussed deficiency in Suzuki
as to claim 4 from which claims 5 and 6 depend. Accordingly, we
reverse the rejections of claims 5 and 6.
Appeal No. 2004-1134
Application No. 09/928,204
10
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over
Suzuki is affirmed as to claims 1 and 2 and reversed as to
claim 3. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claim 4 over
Suzuki, claim 5 over Suzuki in view of Khoury, and claim 6 over
Suzuki in view of Opris, are reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
TERRY J. OWENS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
STUART S. LEVY ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
MAHSHID SAADAT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
TJO:hh
Appeal No. 2004-1134
Application No. 09/928,204
11
PHILLIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
P.O. BOX 3001
BRIARCLIFF MANOR, NY 10510