Ex Parte Matsui

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 10, 2008

09662323 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 10, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte SEIICHI MATSUI
____________

Appeal 2008-0138
Application 09/662,323
Technology Center 2600
____________

Decided: March 10, 2008
____________

Before ANITA PELLMAN GROSS, MAHSHID D. SAADAT, and JOHN A.
JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judges.

GROSS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Matsui (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 4 through 12 and 16 through 24, which
are all of the claims pending in this application. We heard the appeal on
February 14, 2008. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appellant's invention relates to an imaging apparatus and method for
producing low definition image signals. According to the invention, only
pixel information of pairs of adjoining lines is read from a solid image
Appeal 2008-0138
Application 09/662,323

device such as a CCD, and pixel information of one line is produced from
the pixel information of each pair of adjoining lines read from the solid
imaging device. Claim 4 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it reads
as follows:
4. An imaging apparatus comprising:

a solid imaging device in which pixel information of two adjoining
lines composes color information of three primary colors, said solid imaging
device comprises a matrix of transferring gates, to which gate pulses for
transferring only the pixel information of pairs of two adjoining lines with
intervals of a plurality of lines to vertical transferring routes are applied
when image signals with low definition are produced;

a shooting optical system that forms a subject image on a receiving
surface of said solid imaging device;

a timing generator that drives said solid imaging device and reads
pixel information from said solid imaging device, the timing generator
applying gate pulses for transferring only pixel information of pairs of two
adjoining lines with intervals of a plurality of lines to vertical transferring
routes to said transferring gates when image signals with low definition are
produced; and

a signal processing device that produces the image signals by
producing pixel information of one line from the pixel information of each
pair of two adjoining lines read from said solid imaging device when the
image signals with the low definition are produced.

The prior art references of record relied upon by the Examiner in
rejecting the appealed claims are:
Dischert US 6,040,869 Mar. 21, 2000
Harada US 6,108,036 Aug. 22, 2000
Yamaguchi US 6,342,921 B1 Jan. 29, 2002

2
Appeal 2008-0138
Application 09/662,323

Claims 4 through 7, 9 through 12, 16 through 19, and 21 through 24
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi
in view of Harada.
Claims 8 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Yamaguchi in view of Harada and Dischert.
We refer to the Examiner's Answer (mailed November 27, 2006) and
to Appellant's Brief (filed September 26, 2006) and Reply Brief (filed
January 26, 2007) for the respective arguments.

SUMMARY OF DECISION
As a consequence of our review, we will reverse the obviousness
rejections of claims 4 through 12 and 16 through 24.

OPINION
The Examiner asserts (Ans. 5-6) that the only limitation lacking from
Yamaguchi for each of independent claims 4, 11, 12, 16, 23, and 24 is a
signal processing device that produces pixel information of one line from the
pixel information of each pair of two adjoining lines when image signals of
low definition are produced. The Examiner asserts that Harada discloses the
missing limitation in Figure 9 and column 34, lines 23-41, and that it would
have been obvious to combine Harada with Yamaguchi to "provide a means
for adding signals outputted from two adjacent light-receiving regions to
generate a single output in each field."
Each of independent claims 4, 11, 12, 16, 23, and 24 recites a solid
imaging device in which pixel information of two adjoining lines composes
color information of three primary colors and a signal processing device that
3
Appeal 2008-0138
Application 09/662,323

produces low definition image signals by producing pixel information of one
line from the pixel information of each pair of two adjoining lines read from
the solid imaging device. In Figure 1, Yamaguchi shows a solid imaging
device (CCD) 101, a timing generator 108 that switches between line
thinning mode and full-frame reading mode, and a signal processing circuit
104. In the line thinning mode, every other line is read out. (See col. 9, ll.
46-67, and col. 11, ll. 43-46.) First the signal of only red is read out, and
then the signal of only green is read out. (See col. 16, l. 23-col. 17, l. 6.)
Thus, as admitted by the Examiner, Yamaguchi does not disclose producing
pixel information of one line from the pixel information of each pair of
adjacent lines, as Yamaguchi does not read out pairs of adjacent lines.
Harada discloses (col. 25, ll. 25-60, and col. 28, ll. 2-8) an imaging
means formed of three solid state imaging devices, each dedicated to a
corresponding monochromatic light component. Harada further discloses
(col. 34, ll. 30-41) that the nth row is added to the (n+1)th row in a first field
and to the (n-1)th row in a second field. However, each pair of rows added
together has pixel information of a single color, as each pair is for a solid
state imaging device dedicated to a corresponding monochromatic light.
Since Yamaguchi does read out every other line, it is unclear how one
would apply Harada's method of adding the nth and (n+1)th and the nth and
(n-1)th lines read out. Further, even if Harada's method could somehow be
applied to Yamaguchi, the combination of two adjacent lines still would not
produce a single line of pixel data of three primary colors. Accordingly, we
cannot sustain the obviousness rejection of independent claims 4, 11, 12, 16,
23, and 24 and the claims which depend therefrom, claims 5 through 7, 9,
10, 17 through 19, 21, and 22.
4
Appeal 2008-0138
Application 09/662,323

For claims 8 and 20, the Examiner adds Dischert to the primary
combination. However, Dischert fails to cure the shortcomings of
Yamaguchi and Harada. Therefore, we cannot sustain the obviousness
rejection of claims 8 and 20.

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 4 through 12 and 16
through 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.

REVERSED

tdl

BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH
PO BOX 747
FALLS CHURCH, VA 22040-0747
5