Ex Parte Park et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 20, 2014

11727688 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 20, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JI-YONG PARK, SANG-KYUN IM,
and
MYUNG-JIN CHO
____________

Appeal 2012-004487
Application 11/727,688
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
DANIEL N. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1–18. App. Br. 4. Claims 19–24 have been indicated as containing
allowable subject matter. Ans. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2012-004487
Application 11/727,688

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to an image signal
processing apparatus that includes a random producing unit (100), and a
dithering processing unit (150). Spec. Fig. 2, ¶ 41.
Independent claim 1 illustrates the invention as follows:
1. An image signal processing apparatus, comprising:
[(a)] a random producing unit which produces seed
values for a plurality of frames input for a predetermined
period, by using a linear feedback shift register (LFSR); and
[(b)] a dithering processing unit which carries out a
dithering to input image signals by using the seed values
produced by the random producing unit,
[(c)] wherein the seed values produced by the LFSR are
used by the dithering processing unit to select mask matrices
from a plurality of mask matrices, and the dithering processing
unit uses the selected mask matrices to carry out the dithering to
produce dithered image signals.

REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1–3, 6, 10–12, and 15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cherichetti (US 6,219,838 B1, Apr. 17,
2001) and Van Dorsselaer (US 4,937,677, June 26, 1990). Ans. 5–8.
The Examiner rejected claims 4, 7, 9, 13, 16, and 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cherichetti, Van Dorsselaer, and
Winger (US 2006/0182183 A1, Aug. 17, 2006). Ans. 8–11.
The Examiner rejected claims 5 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Cherichetti, Van Dorsselaer, and Lee (EP 1 536 400
A2, June 1, 2005). Ans. 11–12.
Appeal 2012-004487
Application 11/727,688

3
The Examiner rejected claims 8 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Cherichetti, Van Dorsselaer, and Lo (US
2007/0024636 A1, Feb. 1, 2007). Ans. 12–13.

ISSUE AND ANALYSIS1
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 9–16;
Reply Br. 4–7), the principal and dispositive issue as to whether the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–18 turns on whether modifying
Cherichetti with the teachings of Van Dorsselaer would effectively change
Cherichetti’s principle of operation.
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions. 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
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to
Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner.
In rejecting independent claim 1 over the combination of Cherichetti
and Van Dorsselaer, the Examiner finds (Ans. 5) Cherichetti discloses all the
claimed features, except for limitation (c) of claim 1. The Examiner relies
on Van Dorsselaer for disclosing or suggesting limitation (c) of claim 1.
Ans. 5–6.

1 According to Appellants, claim 10 recites features similar to claim 1 (App.
Br. 16). Therefore, we treat claim 1 as representative for purposes of this
appeal.
Appeal 2012-004487
Application 11/727,688

4
In particular, the Examiner properly identifies the relevant teachings
in Cherichetti and Van Dorsselaer and states how each claimed element is
met by those teachings. See Ans. 5–15.
Next, Appellants contend the Examiner’s position for combining
Cherichetti and Van Dorsselaer would effectively change Cherichetti’s
principle of operation. App. Br. 14–15; Reply Br. 5–6. In other words,
Appellants contend the teachings of Cherichetti are not consistent with the
teachings of Van Dorsselaer because,
Cherichetti teaches that the p-bits of Cherichetti are added to
the MSB of the corresponding pixel’s color component signal
38 together to produce the least significant bits LSB of a
dithered color component signal 48 such that each color
component signal (R-G-B) is expanded to 8 bits (col. 5, lines
47-50). Accordingly, even if Cherichetti could be modified as
suggested by the Examiner such that masks are selected through
use of Cherichetti’s p-bits, which it cannot, the modification
would change the principle of operation of Cherichetti. That is,
it seems that any mask selected through use of Cherichetti’s p-
bits would alter the bits that are intended to be input to the
combination logic 46 of Cherichetti, thus changing the intended
least significant bits LSB of a dithered color component 48.
App. Br. 14–15.
In response, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Cherichetti and
Van Dorsselaer are properly combinable because a person of ordinary skill
in the art would have found it obvious to provide “a method in which the
occurrence of Moire distortion is avoided and the signal/noise ratio of the
image is affected insignificantly, if at all.” Ans. 6.
The Examiner also finds:
It is technically feasible to combine van Dorsselaer with
Cherichetti in the manner suggested by the Examiner because
van Dorsselaer and Cherichetti both perform dithering (van
Appeal 2012-004487
Application 11/727,688

5
Dorsselaer: abstract; Cherichetti: abstract) that includes a linear
feedback shift register (van Dorsselaer: f. 5, 13; col. 7 11. 5-6;
Cherichetti: abstract); further combining van Dorsselaer with
Cherichetti would not change the principle operation of
Cherichetti because both inventions use the same components,
e.g., linear feedback shift register.
Ans. 15.
We agree with the Examiner because Appellants’ citation to specific
sections of Cherichetti and Van Dorsselaer amounts to challenging the
references individually and thus, is not convincing of error in the Examiner’s
position. That is, all of the features of the structure in the secondary
reference need not be bodily incorporated into the primary reference, but
consideration should be given to what the combined teachings, knowledge of
one of ordinary skill in the art, and the nature of the problem to be solved as
a whole would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
In that regard, the Supreme Court has indicated:
[It is error to] assum[e] that a person of ordinary skill
attempting to solve a problem will be led only to those elements
of prior art designed to solve the same problem. . . . Common
sense teaches . . . that familiar items may have obvious uses
beyond their primary purposes, and in many cases a person of
ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents
together like pieces of a puzzle.

KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007) (citation omitted).
Furthermore, the artisan is not compelled to blindly follow the
teaching of one prior art reference over the other without the exercise of
independent judgment. See Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d
881, 889 (Fed. Cir. 1984). As such, we find Cherichetti could be adjusted to
Appeal 2012-004487
Application 11/727,688

6
accommodate the teachings of Van Dorsselaer by one of ordinary skill in the
art. As correctly cited by the Examiner, one of ordinary skill could
incorporate the concepts of Van Dorsselaer into Cherichetti without
incorporating every feature of the Van Dorsselaer’s principle into
Cherichetti.
Regarding claims 4, 5, 7–9, 13, 14, and 16–18, Appellants argue
Winger/Lee/Lo does not cure the alleged deficiencies of Cherichetti and
Van Dorsselaer. App. Br. 16–17. As discussed above, we find no such
deficiencies in Cherichetti and Van Dorsselaer to remedy. Separate
patentability is not argued for claims 2, 3, 6, 11, 12, and 15.
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections
of claims 1–18 are sustained.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–18 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