Ex Parte Sezan

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 19, 2004

09040510 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 19, 2004)

1
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not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the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. 22
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte M. IBRAHIM SEZAN
__________
Appeal No. 2002-1460
Application 09/040,510
___________
ON BRIEF
___________
Before HAIRSTON, FLEMING, and GROSS, Administrative Patent
Judges.
FLEMING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 1, 4, 5, and 7 through 29. Claims 2, 3, and 6 have been
canceled.
Invention
The invention relates to a system and method using an image
recording device, i.e., a still or video camera, where the color
histograms are computed on-line during image acquisition, and
Appeal No. 2002-1460
Application 09/040,510
2
where the computed histograms are stored in the image recording
device. See page 1 of Appellant’s specification. Histogram
computations require a lot of processing time and present a
computational bottleneck. See page 2 of Appellant’s
specification. Figure 3 is a block diagram of an image
acquisition device constructed according to the invention. See
page 3 of Appellant’s specification. As shown in figure 3,
camera 14 includes an image sensor 16, which generates an analog
image signal. The analog image signal, A, representative of a
sensed image I, is sent to an analog-to-digital converter 18,
which converts analog image A into a digital image signal D. The
digital image signal D is sent in parallel to both the histogram
computation 28 and the end camera image processing 20. The
computed histograms are stored in histogram storage mechanism 30
of storage mechanism 22. See page 5 of Appellant’s
specification. The processed image signal from end camera image
processing 20 is stored in image storage 24 of storage mechanism
22. Information in a table links histograms with their
associated images and also are recorded. See page 6 of
Appellant’s specification.
Appeal No. 2002-1460
Application 09/040,510
3
Appellant’s independent claim 1 is representative of the
claimed invention and is hereby reproduced as follows:
1. An image acquisition system, comprising:
an image sensor for sensing an image and generating an image
signal therefor;
a histogram computation mechanism for generating, on-line, a
computed histogram from said image signal;
a storage mechanism for persistently storing said image
signal and said computed histogram; and
a linking mechanism for linking said image signal and said
computed histogram associated therewith.
References
The references relied on by the Examiner are as follows:
Alkofer 4,677,465 Jun. 30, 1987
Zhang et al. (Zhang) 5,635,982 Jun. 3, 1997
Daly 5,150,433 Sep. 22, 1992
Rejections at Issue
Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 13 through 15, 17, 18, 20, 22, and
23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by
Alkofer. Claims 7, 12, 16, 21, 24 and 25 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Alkofer in view of
Zhang. Claims 10 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Alkofer in view of Daly. Claims 26
through 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
Appeal No. 2002-1460
Application 09/040,510
1 Appellant filed an appeal brief on March 21, 2001.
Examiner mailed a notice of defective brief on May 22, 2001.
Appellant filed a substitute appeal brief on June 20, 2001. The
substitute brief corrected the defects, noted by the Examiner.
We will simply refer to the substitute appeal brief as the brief
in the opinion. Appellant filed a reply brief on November 13,
2001. The Examiner mailed out an office communication on January
29, 2002 stating that the reply brief has been entered.
4
unpatentable over Alkofer.
Throughout the opinion, we will make reference to the
briefs1 and the answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on
appeal, the Examiner’s rejections and the arguments of the
Appellant and the Examiner, for the reasons stated infra, we
reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 13
through 15, 17, 18, 20, 22, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and we
reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7, 10, 12, 16, 19, 21,
and 24 through 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can
be found only if the prior art reference discloses every element
of the claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136,
Appeal No. 2002-1460
Application 09/040,510
5
138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v.
American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481,
485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Appellant argues that Alkofer fails to teach a storage
mechanism for persistently storing said image signal and said
computed histogram, and a linking mechanism for linking said
image signal and said computed histogram associated therewith as
recited in Appellant’s claim 1. See pages 4 through 6 of the
brief and the reply brief. Appellant further argues that Alkofer
fails to teach an image storage mechanism for persistently
storing said processing image signal, a histogram computation
mechanism for generating, on-line, a computed histogram from said
image signal, a histogram storage mechanism for persistently
storing said computed histograms, and a linking mechanism for
linking said processed image signal and said computed histogram
associated therewith as recited in Appellant’s claim 14. See
pages 7 and 8 of the brief and the reply brief. Appellant also
argues that Alkofer fails to teach forming a link for linking the
computed histogram with an associated image signal and storing,
persistently, the image signal, the computed histogram and the
link as recited in Appellant’s claim 22. See page 9 of the brief
Appeal No. 2002-1460
Application 09/040,510
6
and the reply brief.
The Examiner argues that Alkofer does teach persistently
storing the image signal and computed histogram. The Examiner
points us to figure 6, memory 34, and histogram memory 54. See
pages 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 12 through 16 of the Examiner’s
answer.
Turning to Alkofer, we find that Alkofer is a method of
processing a digital color image derived from photographic film.
See column 1, lines 8 through 10. We further find that Alkofer
states that figure 6 is a schematic diagram showing scan printing
apparatus. See column 3, lines 61 and 62. Alkofer teaches the
details of figure 6 in column 4, line 24, through column 5, line
68. There, Alkofer teaches that the input device includes a
light source 20 and lens 22 for projecting an image of a color
negative film 24 onto three solid state image sensing arrays 26.
The image sensor 26 scans the color photographic negatives to
produce three color separation signals R, G and B. The signals
thus produced are supplied to analog-to-digital converters 32.
The digital color image signals produced from the analog-to-
Appeal No. 2002-1460
Application 09/040,510
7
digital converters are stored in a digital image storage memory
34. A digital computer 36 then reads from the image storage
memory 34 the digital image signals and then processes these
signals to be supplied to digital-to-analog converters 66 which
then supply the analog signals to the output scanning device 68
to reproduce the process color image on a light sensitive media
such as a color photographic paper. Thus, Alkofer’s scanner
simply scans a color negative, processes the scanned signal and
then supplies the processed scanned signal to be exposed on a
light sensitive color photographic paper. The entire process
does not teach or suggest storing any of the intermediate process
signals to be recalled after the light sensitive paper has been
exposed. Therefore, we fail to find that Alkofer teaches the
above claimed limitations.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner
bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443,
1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468,
1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The Examiner can
satisfy this burden by showing that some objective teaching in
Appeal No. 2002-1460
Application 09/040,510
8
the prior art or knowledge generally available to one of ordinary
skill in the art suggests the claimed subject matter. In re
Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Only if this initial burden is met does the burden of coming
forward with evidence or argument shift to the Appellant.
Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at 1444. See also Piasecki,
745 F.2d at 1472, 223 USPQ at 788.
An obviousness analysis commences with a review and
consideration of all the pertinent evidence and arguments. “In
reviewing the [E]xaminer’s decision on appeal, the Board must
necessarily weigh all of the evidence and argument.” Oetiker,
977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at 1444. “[T]he Board must not only
assure that the requisite findings are made, based on evidence of
record, but must also explain the reasoning by which the findings
are deemed to support the agency’s conclusion.” In re Lee, 277
F.3d 1338, 1344, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
For the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we note that the
Examiner relies on Alkofer for the above limitations.
Appeal No. 2002-1460
Application 09/040,510
9
Furthermore, we note that Zhang and Daly fail to teach these
limitations. Thus, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the reasons set forth above.
In view of the foregoing, we have not sustained the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 13 through 15,
17, 18, 20, 22, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Furthermore, we
have not sustained the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7, 10, 12,
16, 19, 21, and 24 through 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
Appeal No. 2002-1460
Application 09/040,510
10
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
MRF:pgc
Robert D. Varitz
380 Harrison Square
1800 SW First Avenue
Portland, OR 97201