Ex Parte SUDO

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 7, 2003

08667459 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 7, 2003)

1 Application for patent filed June 21, 1996, which claims the foreign
filing priority benefit under 35 U.S.C. § 119 of the Japanese Application No.
07-157817, filed June 23, 1995.
2 The rejection of claims 3 and 5, as indicated in the final Office
action (Paper no. 12, mailed July 7, 1999), was withdrawn in the answer (page
2).
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for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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 INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte FUMIHIKO SUDO
____________
Appeal No. 2002-1427
Application No. 08/667,4591
____________
HEARD: MARCH 5, 2003
____________
Before FLEMING, LEVY, 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, 2, 6 and 8. Claims 4 and 7 have been
cancelled and claims 3 and 5 have been indicated as allowable by
the Examiner.2
We reverse.
Appeal No. 2002-1427
Application No. 08/667,459
2
BACKGROUND
Appellant’s invention relates to a video camera system
capable of reducing color differences between a plurality of
cameras by adjusting their gains and DC offset values
(specification, page 1). According to Appellant, color matching
in conventional video camera systems cannot be achieved because
their gains and DC offset values of the cameras are fixed
(specification, page 4). Appellant presents a solution for the
above-mentioned problem by determining the color matching
coefficients of the cameras such that their red, green and blue
signals are adjusted to match those of a reference video camera
(specification, page 9).
Representative independent claim 1 is reproduced as follows:
1. A video camera comprising:
level detecting means for detecting the levels of red,
green and blue signals obtained through imaging operation;
and
color matching means for adjusting the gains and/or the
DC current offset values of said red, green and blue signals
according to one or more coefficients such that the
component color characteristics of the camera substantially
match the component color characteristics of a reference
camera, said coefficients being computed based on the levels
of said red, green and blue signals which are detected by
said level detecting means and levels of red, green and blue
signals detected in said reference camera.
Appeal No. 2002-1427
Application No. 08/667,459
3
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
Examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Griesshaber et al. (Griesshaber) 4,414,573 Nov. 8, 1983
Parulski et al. (Parulski) 5,189,511 Feb. 23, 1993
Claims 1, 2, 6 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Parulski and Griesshaber.
We make reference to the answer (Paper No. 17, mailed June
23, 2000) for the Examiner’s complete reasoning in support of the
rejection, and to the brief (Paper No. 16, filed March 7, 2000)
and the reply brief (Paper No. 18, filed August 28, 2000) for
Appellant’s arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
The Examiner relies on Parulski for teaching a level
detecting means and a color matching means and indicates that the
reference fails to disclose color matching to a reference camera
(answer, page 4). The Examiner, however, reasons that
Griesshaber’s use of a plurality of cameras indicates that:
The teaching of the reference camera is the first camera to
obtain the variety of modes, and the video camera is the
same camera used at a different time in which the values are
produced according to the reference values previously
obtained.
(Id.).
Appeal No. 2002-1427
Application No. 08/667,459
4
The Examiner supports a conclusion of obviousness by further
stating that the already stored coefficients are matched with the
coefficients of the camera for processing color images without
constantly obtaining red, green and blue values (answer, page 5).
Appellant argues that Parulski computes a modified value for
each red, green and blue signals based on the values measured by
the same camera and not on primary values from any other device
(brief, page 6). Additionally, Appellant asserts that although a
plurality of cameras is adjusted in Griesshaber, operating mode
values are generated based on a comparison of each camera’s
generated image and that of an electronic test pattern generator,
not based on comparing with the signal levels of a reference
camera (brief, pages 7 and 8). Appellant further points out that
“in other words, none of Griesshaber’s cameras serves as a
reference, but rather, the electronically generated test pattern
serves as the reference” (brief, page 8).
In response, the Examiner argues that the single camera in
Parulski is the reference camera for obtaining color matching
values which are obtained prior to operation of the camera
(answer, page 7). Furthermore, the Examiner makes the assumption
that the single camera referred to in Parulski for detecting the
Appeal No. 2002-1427
Application No. 08/667,459
5
image signals can also be the reference camera (id.). The
Examiner specifically states that:
Therefore, the camera in Parulski is the prior art that
actually teaches the reference camera is the first camera to
obtain the preset values and the camera is also the same
camera used at a different time in which the values are
produced according to the reference values previously
stored. [Emphasis added.]
(Id.).
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner
bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d
1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). To reach a conclusion of
obviousness under § 103, the examiner must produce a factual
basis supported by teaching in a prior art reference or shown to
be common knowledge of unquestionable demonstration. Our
reviewing court requires this evidence in order to establish a
prima facie case. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223
USPQ 785, 787-88 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The Examiner must not only
identify the elements in the prior art, but also show “some
objective teaching in the prior art or that knowledge generally
available to one of ordinary skill in the art would lead the
individual to combine the relevant teachings of the references.”
In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir.
1988).
Appeal No. 2002-1427
Application No. 08/667,459
6
A review of Parulski confirms that the reference relates to
improved reproduction of hard copy images captured by an
electronic camera (col. 1, lines 18-24). Parulski further
describes color image sensing and signal processing performed by
a camera (col. 4, lines 14-35) by providing the captured image to
a color processing unit (col. 4, lines 36-51) which converts the
electronic image into appropriate signals for producing a color
print (col. 4, lines 56-58). Therefore, Parulski merely adjusts
the electronic color image captured by only one camera for
producing image signals to be sent to a printer.
Griesshaber, on the other hand relates to pattern recognition
for performing automatic or manual error measurements of a
television camera during its setup mode (col. 3, lines 17-21).
As depicted in Figure 2, Griesshaber uses an external or internal
test pattern 151 which is viewed by a number of cameras 152 (col.
3, lines 50-55) and is compared with an electronic test pattern
generated by test pattern generator 170 for error correction
(col. 4, lines 4-10). Griesshaber, in fact, compares the images
obtained by each camera with the electronic test pattern and not
with the image signal generated by any one of the cameras.
Based on our findings above, we agree with Appellant’s
argument (reply brief, page 5) that even if Parulski’s camera may
Appeal No. 2002-1427
Application No. 08/667,459
7
be calibrated according to its own parameters, it does not come
close to inter-camera calibration of a multi camera system based
on a reference camera, as required by Appellant’s claim 1. In
that regard, while Parulski indicates that color adjustment of
the signal takes place and Griesshaber used a plurality of
cameras, the references fail to teach or suggest adjusting and
matching the component color characteristics of a camera
according to coefficients computed based on color signals
detected in a reference camera. In fact, Griesshaber teaches
error measurement in each of a plurality of cameras by comparing
the image of an optical test pattern with that of an
electronically generated pattern. Therefore, by merely employing
multiple cameras in Parulski, the combination of the applied
prior art does not teach or suggest that any component color
matching may be done between the cameras and a reference camera.
Thus, the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness as the necessary teachings and suggestions to
match the color characteristics of the image signal with that of
a reference camera are not present in the applied prior art.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent
claims 1 and 6 as well as claims 2 and 8, which are dependent
thereupon, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Parulski and Griesshaber.
Appeal No. 2002-1427
Application No. 08/667,459
8
CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner
rejecting claims 1, 2, 6 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
STUART S. LEVY ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
MAHSHID D. SAADAT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
MDS/ki
Appeal No. 2002-1427
Application No. 08/667,459
9
Frommer, Lawrence & Haug
745 Fifth Avenue - 10th Floor
New York, NY 10151