Ex Parte SmithDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 18, 201311325112 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 18, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte STEWART GRESTY SMITH ____________ Appeal 2011-000189 Application 11/325,112 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, DENISE M. POTHIER, and BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 17-40 (App. Br. 1-2). 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Claims 1–16 have been cancelled (App. Br. 2). Appeal 2011-000189 Application 11/325,112 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s invention relates to a method for digital filtering of an image signal. Spec. ¶ [0001]. Independent claim 17 is reproduced below with the disputed limitation emphasized: 17. A method of filtering a signal comprising a plurality of pixel values each of which is obtained from at least one pixel of an image sensing array, the method comprising: obtaining, using a reading unit, a central pixel value and a plurality of neighboring pixel values from the image sensing array; determining, using a calculator, a plurality of average values, each average value being an average of an opposing pair of neighboring pixel values obtained from the image sensing array; comparing, using the calculator, each average value with the central pixel value obtained from the image sensing array; and replacing, using the calculator, the central pixel value obtained from the image sensing array with the average value of the plurality thereof that is closest to the central pixel value and storing the average value in a memory. Appeal 2011-000189 Application 11/325,112 3 THE REJECTIONS Claims 17–40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Van Der Valk (EP 0635973 A1; Jan. 25, 1995) and Gindele (U.S. 2003/0215153 A1; Nov. 20, 2003). Ans. 3-8. THE CONTENTIONS Regarding illustrative claim 17, the Examiner finds that Van Der Valk strongly suggests the disputed limitation by describing that a comparison circuit checks, for each color, whether an original pixel value is larger than an associated mean pixel value and, if so, supplies the computed mean pixel values instead of the original pixel values (Ans. 5). The Examiner additionally finds that Gindele describes “both the method of replacing [a] missing pixel with the average of the neighboring pixels . . . and the method [of] replacing a central pixel with a noise reduced pixel based on the closeness between the central pixel value and the values of neighboring pixels” (Ans. 14; see also Ans. 5-6). Appellant argues that neither Van Der Valk nor Gindele teach replacing the central pixel value with the average of the plurality that is closest to the central pixel value (App. Br. 6-10; Reply Br. 2-7). Appellant also argues that Gindele is not properly combinable with Van Der Valk (App. Br. 9). ISSUES 1. Under § 103, did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Van Der Valk and Gindele teaches “replacing, using the calculator, the central pixel value obtained from the image sensing array Appeal 2011-000189 Application 11/325,112 4 with the average value of the plurality thereof that is closest to the central pixel value,” as recited in independent claim 17, and similarly recited in independent claims 24 and 33? 2. Did the Examiner err in finding that it would have been obvious to combine Van Der Valk and Gindele? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s contentions in the Appeal Brief presented in response to the Final Office Action and the Reply Brief presented in response to the Examiner’s Answer. We disagree with Appellant’s conclusions and highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows. 1) First Issue We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that neither Van Der Valk nor Gindele teach the disputed limitation (App. Br. 6-10; Reply Br. 2- 7). Notably, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). Regarding the Examiner’s finding that Van Der Valk strongly suggests the disputed limitation (Ans. 5), Appellant argues that because Van Der Valk describes replacing an original pixel value only if it is larger than the largest average value obtained, Van Der Valk does not teach replacement of a central pixel value with an average value that is closest to the central pixel value (App. Br. 8). That Van Der Valk checks for each color whether the original pixel value is larger than the Appeal 2011-000189 Application 11/325,112 5 associated largest mean pixel value is of no consequence here, for nothing in the claim precludes such checking, particularly in view of the preamble’s open-ended “comprising” language. See CollegeNet, Inc. v. ApplyYourself, Inc., 418 F.3d 1225, 1235 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The Examiner finds that Gindele describes both replacing a missing pixel with an average of the neighboring pixels and replacing a central pixel with a noise reduced pixel based on the closeness of the central pixel value and the surrounding pixel values (Ans. 14). Appellant argues Gindele does not describe a plurality of average values, but rather that “[t]here is one and only one average value in Gindele . . .” (Reply Br. 6) (emphasis in original). However, as the Examiner correctly finds (Ans. 4), and as Appellant concedes (App. Br. 8), Van Der Valk discloses the claimed “determining . . . a plurality of average pixel values . . . .” Furthermore, as the Examiner also correctly finds, Gindele discloses a replacement method using averages of neighboring pixels (Ans. 5 (citing Gindele ¶[0055]); Ans. 14 (citing Gindele ¶¶[0055],[0058])). Collectively, these references teach and suggest replacing the central pixel value with the average value of its neighboring pixels that is closest . Thus, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Van Der Valk and Gindele teaches “replacing, using the calculator, the central pixel value obtained from the image sensing array with the average value of the plurality thereof that is closest to the central pixel value,” as recited in independent claim 17, and commensurately recited in independent claims 24 and 33. Appeal 2011-000189 Application 11/325,112 6 2) Second Issue We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that Gindele is not properly combinable with Van Der Valk because Van Der Valk is used for spatial filtering and Gindele is used in an interpolation method (App. Br. 9). Modifying Van Der Valk’s disclosure of correcting deviating pixel color values with Gindele’s disclosure of improving contrast of a digital image is no more than a predictable use of familiar prior art elements according to their established functions, therefore rendering the recited invention obvious. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Additionally, the Examiner has articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning to combine Van Der Valk and Gindele (Ans. 6). Thus, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 17, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), and dependent claims 18, 20–23, 25, and 27–32, not separately argued (App. Br. 10). Accordingly, we sustain that rejection. Regarding claims 19 and 26, Appellant argues that Van Der Valk does not describe “using the average value that is the closest to the central pixel value as an input for anything at all.” App. Br. 12. However, the Examiner finds that the combination of Van Der Valk and Gindele teaches using an average value that is closest to the central pixel value as an input for a second pixel value. Ans. 6 (citing Van Der Valk col. 1, ll. 40-45; col. 3, ll. 30-35; Gindele ¶[0055]). Appellant’s remaining arguments for the patentability of dependent claims 19 and 26 substantially parallel those made for the patentability of independent claim 17. See generally App. Br. 10-13, 35; compare App. Br. 6-10. Thus, for the reasons discussed supra with Appeal 2011-000189 Application 11/325,112 7 respect to claim 17, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments and sustain the rejection of claims 19 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Appellant argues that claim 33 recites a memory for storing the average value of the plurality thereof that is closest to the central pixel value, which Appellant argues “is similar to dependent Claim[s] 19 and 26.” App. Br. 14. For the reasons discussed supra with respect to claims 19 and 26, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Thus, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), and dependent claims 34 and 36–40, not separately argued (App. Br. 14). Accordingly, we sustain that rejection. Appellant relies on previous arguments for claim 35 (App. Br. 15). For the reasons discussed supra, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments and, therefore, sustain the rejection of claim 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 17–40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED ELD Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation