Ex Parte Sono

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 10, 2010

10303054 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 10, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte KOICHI SONO
_____________

Appeal 2009-013756
Application 10/303,054
Technology Center 2600
______________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JAY P. LUCAS, and BRADLEY W.
BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-013756
Application 10/303,054

2

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) of the rejection of
claims 9 and 11.
We affirm.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method of automatically adjusting the
luminance of a display image. See Paragraphs 06-08 of Appellant’s
Specification. Claim 9 is reproduced below:
9. A method of automatically adjusting luminance of an
image signal, the method comprising:
(a) calculating an average luminance value of an image to
be displayed;
(b) dividing a luminance level into a plurality of
luminance regions, and detecting which luminance region the
average luminance value, which is calculated in step (a),
corresponds to; and
(c) controlling an amplification of the luminance level
according to the luminance region detected in step (b).

REFERENCE
Fujimura 5,808,697 Sept. 15, 1998

REJECTION AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 9 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Fujimura. The Examiner’s rejection is on pages 3
and 4 of the Answer.2

2 Throughout this decision we refer to the Examiner’s Answer dated
February 27 2007.
Appeal 2009-013756
Application 10/303,054

3

ISSUES
Appellant argues on pages 9 and 10 of the Brief3 and pages 4-6 of the
Reply Brief that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Fujimura is in error.
Appellant’s contentions with respect to claim 9 present us with the
issue: did the Examiner properly interpret the claim limitation of “an image
to be displayed”?

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Appellant’s Specification, discusses dividing “luminance values of
an image signal, which belongs to one video field over the whole
image or an image within a range set by the user.” Thus,
Appellant’s Specification discuses that a “whole image” is over one
video field or that an image can be within a range of the video field.
Specification para. 19.
2. Appellant’s Specification also states that the video field is arbitrarily
set. Specification para. 23

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
In analyzing the scope of the claim, Office personnel must rely on
Appellant’s disclosure to properly determine the meaning of the terms used
in the claims. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 980
(Fed. Cir. 1995). “[I]nterpreting what is meant by a word in a claim is not to
be confused with adding an extraneous limitation appearing in the
Appeal 2009-013756
Application 10/303,054

4

specification, which is improper.” In re Cruciferous Sprout Litigation, 301
F.3d 1343, 1348, (Fed. Cir. 2002) (emphasis original) (citations and
quotations omitted). Extrinsic evidence may be used to determine the
meaning of terms in the claims. However, our reviewing court has stated
that they view “extrinsic evidence in general as less reliable than the patent
and its prosecution history in determining how to read claim terms, for
several reasons.” For instance, “extrinsic evidence by definition is not part
of the patent and does not have the specification’s virtue of being created at
the time of patent prosecution for the purpose of explaining the patent’s
scope and meaning” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1318 (Fed. Cir.
2005).
During examination of a patent application, a claim is given its
broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification. In re
Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05 (CCPA 1969). “Construing claims broadly
during prosecution is not unfair to the applicant . . . because the applicant
has the opportunity to amend the claims to obtain more precise claim
coverage.” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir.
2004) (citing and quoting In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571-72 (Fed.
Cir. 1984). (“An applicant’s ability to amend his claims to avoid cited prior
art distinguishes proceedings before the PTO from proceedings in federal
district courts on issued patents.” Id.)

3 Throughout this decision we refer to the Appeal Brief dated November 27,
2006 and Reply Brief dated April 27, 2007.
Appeal 2009-013756
Application 10/303,054

5

ANALYSIS
Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us that the Examiner
improperly interpreted the claim limitation of “an image to be displayed.”
The Examiner states “an area or a portion of an image has been considered
as an image, and the term image as it appeared in the claimed invention has
been given the broadest reasonable interpretation.” Answer 4. This
interpretation is consistent with the usage of the term in Appellant’s
Specification which discusses an image as being an arbitrary portion of a
whole image. Facts 1, 2. Further, we note that Appellant’s proffered
definition of the term image as “an entire image displayed on a screen”
(Reply Brief. 5) is not supported by Appellant’s Specification, nor has
Appellant presented persuasive evidence that this narrower definition is
proper. Accordingly, we decline to interpret the term image as narrowly as
asserted by Appellant. Rather we find that the Examiner’s interpretation is
reasonable. As such, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 9 and 11.

CONCLUSION
Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
interpretation of the claim limitation of “an image to be displayed.”

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 9 and 11 is affirmed.

AFFIRMED

Appeal 2009-013756
Application 10/303,054

6

tkl

SUGHRUE MION, PLLC
2100 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W.
SUITE 800
WASHINGTON, DC 20037