Ex Parte Shinozaki

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 13, 2004

09139711 (B.P.A.I. May. 13, 2004)

1 Application for patent filed August 25, 1998, which claims the
foreign filing priority benefit under 35 U.S.C. § 119 of the Japanese
Application No. 09-228460, filed August 25, 1997.
-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for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 24
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCE

Ex parte YUJI SHINOZAKI
___________
Appeal No. 2004-0262
Application No. 09/139,7111
____________
HEARD: APRIL 13, 2004
____________
Before GROSS, BARRY and SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 6, 13 and 14. Claims 4 and 7-12 have
been canceled.
We reverse.
Appeal No. 2004-0262
Application No. 09/139,711
-2-
BACKGROUND
Appellant’s invention is directed to an image scanner having
an expanded range of brightness within which the scanner can
operate. According to Appellant, conventional scanners operate
in limited range of brightness and degraded image quality when
the sensor is saturated due to excessive brightness light
(specification, page 2). To maintain a high image quality,
Appellant provides for a brightness sensing means which causes
the reading speed of the image sensor be varied according to the
sensed brightness (specification, page 3).
Representative independent claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. An image scanner equipped with a one-dimensional image
sensor and an optical mechanism to scan an original placed with
its face up in a limited area and makes said image sensor read an
image data on said original’s face, comprising:
brightness sensing means for sensing the ambient brightness;
and
means for varying the reading speed of said one-dimensional
image sensor in accordance with the brightness sensed by said
brightness sensing means, wherein said varying means includes a
clock frequency control means for controlling a clock frequency
to be applied to said one-dimensional image sensor in accordance
with the brightness sensed by said brightness sensing means.
The Examiner relies on the following reference in rejecting
the claims:
Suzuki et al. (Suzuki) 5,856,879 Jan. 5, 1999
(filed Jun. 19, 1997)
Appeal No. 2004-0262
Application No. 09/139,711
-3-
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Suzuki.
We make reference to the answer (Paper No. 16, mailed July
18, 2001) and to the final Office action (Paper No. 7, mailed
August 28, 2000) for the Examiner’s complete reasoning in support
of the rejection and to the appeal brief (Paper No. 15, filed
April 7, 2001) and to the reply brief, (Paper No. 17, filed
September 17, 2001) for Appellant’s arguments there against.
OPINION
The main point of contention is based on whether the claimed
clock frequency that is applied to the image sensor reads on the
charging period determined by image brightness as taught in
Suzuki. The Examiner equates the claimed “brightness sensing
means” with the controlling of the clock frequency during the
“photometering process” while the claimed “means for varying the
reading speed” is equated with elements 407-411 in Figure 30 of
Suzuki (final, page 2). To support this position, the Examiner
relies on column 25, lines 16-25 and 41-65 of the reference
(id.).
Appellant argues that the controlling of the charging period
based on brightness is not the same as the claimed controlling of
the clock frequency (brief, page 5). Appellant further contrasts
Appeal No. 2004-0262
Application No. 09/139,711
-4-
the charging period of an image sensor as a period for storing an
electrical charge in the photodiodes of the image sensor with the
clock signal as a signal used to shift the stored electrical
charge from the photodiode (brief, page 6). Appellant further
asserts that what in Suzuki corresponds with the clock signal or
the driving pulse is the “transmission pulse” (col. 26, line 5)
which is not the same as the charging period (id.). While
acknowledging that Suzuki’s charging period depends on the sensed
brightness, Appellant argues that this charging period is not the
same as the claimed clock pulse and the driving signal of Suzuki,
which is called “transmission pulse,” does not depend on the
sensed brightness (id.).
In response to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner relies on
Figure 20 of Suzuki and argues that the pulses generated by CPU
301 called “sample and hold pulse” and “calm pulse” are a
function of the brightness determination (answer, page 4). The
Examiner further relies on Figure 20 of Suzuki and argues that
the clock pulses generated by the CPU called “sample and hold
pulse” and “calm pulse” are a function of the brightness
determination (id.). Additionally, the Examiner asserts that
Suzuki does teach the clock signal as a driving pulse because the
Appeal No. 2004-0262
Application No. 09/139,711
-5-
stored charges are transformed to a transmission part in response
to a transmission pulse (answer, page 6).
A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires that
the four corners of a single prior art document describe every
element of the claimed invention, either expressly or inherently,
such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could practice
the invention without undue experimentation. See Atlas Powder
Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947
(Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d
1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
After a review of Suzuki, we agree with Appellant’s
assertion that the claimed clock signal to be applied to the one-
dimensional image sensor is different from the charging period or
the rotating speed of the scanning mirror. Suzuki in col. 25,
lines 19-24 states:
In the photometering process, a charging period of the image
sensor 16 for each line during image capturing is selected
based on the maximum brightness at which pixels will not be
saturated. The rotating speed of the scanning motor 70 is
then determined to correspond to the charging period.

Therefore, although the rotating speed of the scanning motor is
determined based on the desired charging period, it is the
rotation of the motor that rotates the mirror and actually causes
the image sensor to capture the image for that charging period.
Appeal No. 2004-0262
Application No. 09/139,711
-6-
The way the charging period is imposed on the image sensor
is further described in col. 28, lines 9-12 and shown in Figure
31:
Then, at S505, a scanning speed fp for the scanning motor
70 is determined. The scanning speed fp is defined as a
motor driving pulse cycle calculated to provide the charging
period determined in the photometering process. [Emphasis
added.]
The scanning motor 70 rotates the scanning mirror 2 at the speed
that allows the sensor 16 to capture the image and store the
charges for the duration equal to the predetermined “charge
period.” Once the charges are transformed to a transmission part
through a shift gate, they are read out in response to a clock
signal which is what Appellant argues to be independent from the
sensed brightness. Suzuki describes this charge transfer in col.
25, line 67 through col. 26, line 6:
In the image sensor 16, an electrical charge, which is
stored in a photodiode for each pixel in response to a
received light amount, is transformed to a transmission part
through a shift gate. The transmitted electrical charge is
sequentially input into a floating capacitor in response to
a transmission pulse and then converted to a voltage.
There is nothing in Suzuki indicate that this “transmission
pulse,” which is actually the only pulse applied to the image
sensor, is not determined or controlled by the sensed brightness.
We also agree with Appellant (reply brief, page 2) that the
readout of the charges from the image sensor does not depend on
Appeal No. 2004-0262
Application No. 09/139,711
-7-
the sensed brightness since clamp and sample-and-hold pulses
(col. 15, lines 3-15) are neither a part of the image capturing
and storing of the charges nor in any way described as affected
by the sensed brightness.
We note that independent claims 13 and 14 also require that
a clock signal dependent on the brightness information be applied
to the image sensor. As discussed above, Suzuki does not apply a
clock pulse to the one-dimensional image sensor that is
determined according to the brightness sensed and therefore,
cannot anticipate any of independent claims 1, 13, and 14, nor
claims 2, 3, 5, 6 dependent therefrom.
Appeal No. 2004-0262
Application No. 09/139,711
-8-
CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner
rejecting claims 1-3, 5, 6, 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is
reversed.
REVERSED
ANITA P. GROSS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LANCE L. BARRY ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
MAHSHID D. SAADAT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
MDS/dpv
Appeal No. 2004-0262
Application No. 09/139,711
-9-
FOLEY AND LARDNER
3000 K STREET NW - STE 500
P.O. BOX 25996
WASHINGTON, DC 20007-8696