Ex parte Torii

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 18, 1999

08063665 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 18, 1999)

Application for patent filed May 20, 1993. 1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today (1) was not written for publication in a law
journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the
Board.
Paper No. 20
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte REIKO TORII
____________
Appeal No. 95-5109
Application No. 08/063,6651
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before THOMAS, HAIRSTON and CARMICHAEL, Administrative Patent
Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1
through 13.
The disclosed invention relates to an apparatus for
generating an automatic focus (hereinafter auto-focus)
Appeal No. 95-5109
Application No. 08/063,665
2
measurement value on the basis of contrast components of a
field of a video signal.
In the acknowledged prior art, a conventional circuit
(Figure 2) for generating an auto-focus measurement value
band-limited a digital video signal input Y with a high-pass
filter (HPF) 2 before sending the video signal to an absolute
value circuit (ABS) 3 where the video signal was converted
into an absolute value signal representative of contrast
components of the video signal (specification, page 1). The
absolute value signal output from ABS 3 was then sent to a
detecting unit 4 which generated an auto-focus measurement
value EST via one of various conventional approaches
(specification, pages 1 and 2). The “all integration system”
approach (Figure 3A), the “horizontal line peak hold system”
approach (Figure 3B) and the “vertical peak hold system”
approach (Figure 3C) are three of the conventional approaches
(specification, pages 2 and 3).
The detecting unit in appellant’s disclosed and claimed
invention combines the latter two approaches (i.e., the
horizontal line peak hold system and the vertical peak hold
system) to form an auto-focus measurement value EST. In a
Appeal No. 95-5109
Application No. 08/063,665
3
first embodiment (Figure 7), a horizontal line peak hold
circuit 4a and a vertical peak hold circuit 4c in the
detecting unit 4' are separated by an averaging circuit 4b
which provides sequential rolling averages of the maximum
value outputs from the horizontal line peak hold circuit 4a
(specification, pages 12 and 13). The vertical peak hold
circuit 4c generates a maximum value SC on the basis of the
rolling average values from the averaging circuit 4b, and the
maximum value output SC from vertical peak hold circuit 4c is
used as the auto-focus measurement value EST (specification,
pages 13 and 14). In a second embodiment (Figure 9), the
output from a horizontal line peak hold circuit 4a inputs a
combined low-pass filter and vertical peak hold circuit 4d
(Figures 9 and 10). The low-pass filter portion 43 of circuit
4d performs low-pass filtering on the output from horizontal
line peak hold circuit 4a, and then passes the filtered
maximum values to the vertical peak hold portion 44 of circuit
4d (specifi-
cation, pages 15 through 17).
Claim 1 reads on the first embodiment, claim 2 reads on
the second embodiment, and claim 3 derives first and second
Appeal No. 95-5109
Application No. 08/063,665
4
auto-focus measurement values using the techniques of the
first and second embodiments before “determining, in response
to a change in both said first and second auto-focus
measurement values, that an auto-focus operation should be
performed” (specification, pages 21 through 24; Figure 15).
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it
reads as follows:
1. An apparatus for generating an auto-focus measurement
value to be used in performing an auto-focus operation on the
basis of contrast components of a field of a video signal,
comprising:
line peak means for sequentially receiving lines within
said field of said video signal and generating respective
maximum values of contrast components of said received lines
within said field of said video signal;
average means for sequentially averaging said maximum
values generated by said line peak means over predetermined
groups of said lines within said field of said video signal to
form a plurality of average values for said field; and
peak hold means for outputting as said auto-focus
measurement value for said field of said video signal a
maximum value of said plurality of average values formed by
said average means.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Murashima 4,967,279 Oct.
30, 1990
Kondo et al. (Kondo) 5,093,716 Mar. 3,
1992
Appeal No. 95-5109
Application No. 08/063,665
A copy of the translation of this reference is attached.2
5
Ueda et al. (Ueda) 5,107,337 Apr. 21,
1992
Hiroshi et al. (Hiroshi) 3-132172 May 6,2
1991
(Japanese patent application)
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kondo.
Claims 1, 2, 6 through 10 and 13 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo in view of
Murashima.
Claims 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Kondo in view of Murashima and Ueda.
Claims 4 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Kondo in view of Hiroshi.
Reference is made to the briefs and the answers for the
respective positions of the appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
The obviousness rejections are reversed.
All of the claims on appeal use the horizontal line peak
hold system (Figure 3B) and the vertical peak hold system
(Figure 3C) simultaneously in conjunction with either an
Appeal No. 95-5109
Application No. 08/063,665
6
averaging means (claims 1 and 3 through 13) or a low-pass
filter means (claim 2) to determine an auto-focus measurement
value on the basis of contrast components of a field of a
video signal.
Konda discloses a digital color video camera (Figure 4)
that has an auto-focus detector 21, an auto-exposure detector
22 and an auto-white detector 23. The input video signal 31
is separated into luminance and chrominance signals by
separators 32 and 33, respectively. The luminance portion of
the video signal travels through a series of filters 35
through 38, a series of selectors 39A through 39D, and a
series of coring circuits 40A through 40D before being gated
by gates 41A through 41D and switches 42A through 42D into a
series of peak detector 43A through 43D. Kondo discloses
(column 12, lines 43 through 64) that each of the peak
detectors may be a peak detector circuit for detecting the
maximum level of a high frequency component of a luminance
signal during a video line interval or, in the alternative, a
peak detector circuit for detecting the maximum level of a
high frequency component of a luminance signal during a
vertical field interval. The two different peak detector
Appeal No. 95-5109
Application No. 08/063,665
7
circuits are never used together in Kondo. The outputs from
the peak detector circuits 43A through 43D are to a series of
integrators 45A through 45D. The explanation of the function
of the integrators makes clear that one type of peak detector
is used in one embodiment and the other type of peak detector
is used in another embodiment (column 13, lines 18 through
30). In a later paragraph (column 13, lines 42 through 44),
Kondo expressly states that “[t]he foregoing alternative
operating modes of peak detector circuit 43A and integrator
circuit 45A will best be appreciated by referring to FIG. 10.
. . .” (Emphasis added). In another operating mode of the
Kondo video camera, Kondo explains (column 19, lines 11
through 21) that:
For example, the focus detection signals produced by
integrator circuits 45A and 45B are used in
combination to sense the focus condition during
scanning of pixel elements within auto-focus area
AE , and the focus detection signals produced by2
integrator circuits 45C and 45D are used as a
measure of the focus condition during scanning of
pixel elements within the auto-focus area AE . By1
using a pair of focus detection signals, erroneous
indications attributable to artifacts or
interference in one of the focus detection signals
are avoided.
According to appellant (Brief, page 22):
Appeal No. 95-5109
Application No. 08/063,665
8
This demonstrates that the pair of signals
contemplated in Kondo must be of the same type,
i.e., two integrated values. . . . Therefore, Kondo
does not, as the Examiner alleges, disclose using
two different auto-focus measurement values to
detect a lens focus condition.
We agree. “Applicant’s invention, as defined in claim 3,
checks an average of the line peak values and a field maximum
value signal to determine if both have changed” (Brief, page
23). Appellant correctly concludes (Brief, page 24) that:
The mere fact that both systems use redundancy by
checking two auto-focus values does not make claim 3
obvious. The Examiner’s logic that since redundancy
is known in the prior art, it is obvious to use two
known signals in a redundant manner to produce a
result, be it novel or not, is incorrect.
In summary, the obviousness rejection of claim 3 is
reversed because the claimed redundant means for producing
first and second auto-focus measurement values, and the
averaging means are neither taught by nor would have been
suggested by the teachings of Kondo.
Turning next to the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 2,
6 through 10 and 13, we have already established supra that
Kondo discloses the use of either a peak detector circuit for
detecting the maximum level of a high frequency component of a
luminance signal during a video line interval or a peak
Appeal No. 95-5109
Application No. 08/063,665
9
detector circuit for detecting the maximum level of a high
frequency component of a luminance signal during a vertical
field interval, and not the claimed simultaneous use of both
circuits. With respect to the claimed averaging means (claim
1), we agree with appellant’s argument (Brief, page 11) that
“Kondo does not disclose such a device.”
The secondary reference to Murashima discloses in the
Abstract that:
An automatic focusing circuit in a video camera
separates a high frequency component from the video
signal obtained in an image sensing circuit 4 for
every field. After the separated high frequency
component is integrated in an integration circuit
10, the result is converted into a digital value by
an A/D converter 11 and is applied to a holding
circuit 12 as a focus evaluating value. The holding
circuit 12, which comprises first to fifth memories
coupled in series, always holds the newest
successive five focus evaluating values. The
largest focus evaluating value is detected by the
maximum value detecting circuit 18 for every field
and is applied to a memory 19. The maximum value is
compared with the maximum value one field before
held in a memory 20 in a comparator
Appeal No. 95-5109
Application No. 08/063,665
10
circuit 21. If the newest maximum value in the
memory 19 is decreased, a focusing motor control
circuit 22 inverts the rotational direction of the
focusing motor 3.
Even if we assume for the sake of argument that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use
the peak hold means of Murashima in Kondo, we are still left
with the fact that Kondo does not disclose an averaging means
and uses the two claimed means for determining auto-focus
measurement values in an alternative manner.
With respect to the claimed low-pass filter between the
two means for determining auto-focus measurement values (claim
2), we agree with appellant’s arguments (Brief, pages 18 and
19) that such auto-focus apparatus is neither taught by nor
would have been suggested by Kondo and Murashima. Thus, the
obviousness rejection of claims 1, 2, 6 through 10 and 13 is
reversed.
The obviousness rejection of claims 11 and 12 is reversed
because the auto-focus region teachings of Ueda (column 3,
lines 38 and 39) do not cure the noted shortcomings in the
teachings of Kondo and Murashima.
Appeal No. 95-5109
Application No. 08/063,665
11
The obviousness rejection of claims 4 and 5 is reversed
because even if Hiroshi discloses “a means to improve the
performance of an auto-focusing operation by inputting a video
signal so that start points of a blanking period and a video
image period are set equally to a prescribed level” (Answer,
pages 11 and 12), the combined teachings of Kondo and Hiroshi
would still not meet the limitations of independent claim 3
and dependent claims 4 and 5.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through
13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
Appeal No. 95-5109
Application No. 08/063,665
12
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JAMES T. CARMICHAEL )
Administrative Patent Judge )
FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG
745 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10151