Ex parte VILIESID

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 16, 1999

08167617 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 16, 1999)

Application for patent filed December 15, 1993. According to1
appellant, this application is a continuation of application 07/842,644, filed
February 27, 1992. Now abandoned.
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written for publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding
precedent of the Board.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. 38
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte NICHOLAS A. W. VILIESID
____________
Appeal No. 96-1628
Application No. 08/167,6171
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before HAIRSTON, BARRETT, and GROSS, Administrative Patent
Judges.
GROSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final
rejection of claims 1, 11, 12, 21, 22, 24, and 31 through 36.
Claims 2 through 10, 13 through 17, and 37 have been withdrawn
from consideration as being directed to nonelected claims.
Appeal No. 96-1628
Application No. 08/167,617
Hirobe, PN 4,535,364, issued August 13, 1985, Mizokami et al., PN2
4,584,610, issued April 22, 1986, Okino et al., PN 5,019,911, issued May 28,
1991, Walter, PN 3,818,127, issued June 18, 1974, Homma et al., PN 5,339,163,
2
The appellant's invention relates to a video camera which
reduces by a constant amount (a negative offset) the voltage
level of the video signals which correspond to an incident
intensity over a predetermined threshold. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the claimed invention, and it reads as
follows:
1. Image capture apparatus for producing video
image signals, comprising:
image sensor means for producing video image
signals having voltage levels representative of
radiation intensities incident on respective areas
of said image sensor means;
means for identifying those respective areas of
said image sensor means at which the incident
radiation intensity exceeds a predetermined
intensity and for producing a control signal
representative thereof; and
means responsive to said control signal for
selectively causing a reduction in the voltage
levels of said video image signals corresponding to
said respective areas, which reduction is equivalent
to applying a negative offset to said video image
signals.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are :2
Appeal No. 96-1628
Application No. 08/167,617
issued August 16, 1994, Kerbel, PN 4,158,859, issued June 19, 1979, Oba, JP
60-136480, published July 19, 1985, and Todaka, JP 63-123278, published May
27, 1988, are all cited in the prior art section of the Examiner's Answer but
were not applied in any rejections.
As the claims stand or fall together (Brief, page 6), only the alleged3
anticipation of claim 1 by Asao will be considered.
3
Kawaoka et al. (Kawaoka) 5,075,775 Dec.
24, 1991
Asao JP 3-070274 Mar. 26,
1991
Claims 1, 11, 21, 22, 24, and 31 through 36 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by
Asao. Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Asao in view of Kawaoka .3
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 29,
mailed June 13, 1995) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to the appellant's Brief (Paper
No. 28, filed March 10, 1995) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 31,
filed August 02, 1995) for the appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art references, and the respective positions articulated
by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our
Appeal No. 96-1628
Application No. 08/167,617
4
review, we will reverse the anticipation rejection of claims
1, 11, 21, 22, 24, and 31 through 36 and the obviousness
rejection of claim 12.
Claim 1, the only independent claim, recites
means for identifying those respective areas of
said image sensor means at which the incident
radiation intensity exceeds a predetermined
intensity . . . and
means . . . for selectively causing a reduction
in the voltage levels of said video image signals
corresponding to said respective areas, which
reduction is equivalent to applying a negative
offset to said video image signals.
Thus, the voltage level is reduced for those areas at which
the
intensity exceeds the threshold, and the reduction equals a
negative offset. Appellant shows in Figure 5 a uniform
reduction of all voltages representing intensities above the
threshold such that all of the voltages are reduced by the
same amount. Appellant describes Figure 5 (Specification,
page 9) as showing "a change in the image signals
corresponding to that area 21 (equivalent to applying a
Appeal No. 96-1628
Application No. 08/167,617
5
negative offset to those signals)." In the specification
(page 11), appellant states
The effect of the programmable attenuator 48 is,
therefore, to apply a negative pedestal to a range
of intensity values for the image signals within the
areas specified by the threshold detector 46 to step
down or shift that range of intensity values by a
selected amount determined by control signals.
(underlining added for emphasis.)
Accordingly, claim 1 requires reducing by a constant amount
the voltage level of the video image signals that correspond
to intensities above a threshold.
Appellant contends (Brief, page 8) that
Asao does not reduce the voltage level of those
areas which receive light intensities that exceed a
predetermined intensity, with such reduction being
equivalent to applying a negative offset to those
areas . . . Asao reduces the lower intensity regions
by a smaller amount than the higher intensity
regions utilizing "reverse-light conditions."
and (Brief, page 9) that "[t]he combination of identifying
those
areas that exceed a predetermined intensity and reducing the
intensities of those areas by a constant amount (i.e., a
Appeal No. 96-1628
Application No. 08/167,617
6
negative offset) is neither shown nor suggested in Asao." We
agree.
Asao describes (Translation, pages 5-6) reducing the
light permeability (or voltage) per region according to the
relative intensities for the regions. In other words, the
voltage at a very high intensity region will be reduced more
than at a slightly high intensity region. Asao does reduce
the light permeability (or voltage) a constant amount for all
picture elements within a given block. However, the claim
requires "selectively causing a reduction in the voltage
levels of said video image signals corresponding to said
respective areas" where the "respective areas" are those areas
in which the intensity exceeds a threshold value. In Asao,
the areas determined to have high incident intensity values
are blocks, and the voltage level from block to block varies
according to the intensity incident upon the block. If the
picture elements within a block are considered to be the
areas, then the reduction in voltage level is not
"corresponding to the respective areas", as the voltage level
is reduced for each picture element within the block
Appeal No. 96-1628
Application No. 08/167,617
7
regardless of the brightness level. In other words, the
voltage
would be reduced even for picture elements (within the block)
which have incident intensities below the threshold value.
The examiner asserts (Answer, page 10) that appellant's
arguments that Asao does not teach reducing only those
intensities which exceed a threshold "are not relevant since
'only those intensities which exceed a threshold are reduced'
is not directly recited in the claims." However, as discussed
above, claim 1 recites that the reduction is done selectively
for the video image signals corresponding to the areas in
which the intensity is above the threshold.
Furthermore, as the last paragraph of claim 1 is recited
as a means plus function, we "must look to the specification
and interpret that language in light of the corresponding
structure, material, or acts described therein, and
equivalents thereof, to the extent that the specification
provides such disclosure." In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189,
29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Here, the "means . . . for
selectively causing a reduction in the voltage levels of said
Appeal No. 96-1628
Application No. 08/167,617
8
video image signals corresponding to said respective areas" is
disclosed on page 11, lines 8-30, as a programmable attenuator
48 which
responds to the first control signal C from the1
threshold detector 46 to attenuate the image signals
(the voltages) from the sensor 33 which correspond
to
the areas where the incident intensity exceeds the
threshold and responds to the second control signal
C 2
not to attenuate the other image signals received.
Figure 7B is a schematic representation of the
programmable attenuator 48. The programmable
attenuator comprises a signal modifier 49 for
stepping down a signal received at a first input
thereof. The degree by which the input signal is
stepped down is determined by a control signal S
supplied at a second input of the signal modifier
49. Conveniently, the signal modifier can be
implemented by an operational amplifier for which
the first input is the positive input and the second
input is the negative input. The control signals C -1
C are used to control a switch 47. Thus, image2
signals received from the image sensor 33 are
directed by the switch 47 to the programmable
attenuator 49 on receipt of a control signal C from1
the threshold detector 46 indicating that the
received signal from the sensor 33 is representative
of an image intensity exceeding the predetermined
incident inten-sity P. Such signals are then
stepped down by the amount determined by the control
signal S. Image signals received from the image
sensor 33 when a control signal C is supplied by the2
threshold detector 46 are channeled by the switch 47
Appeal No. 96-1628
Application No. 08/167,617
9
so as to bypass the signal modifier 49 and to emerge
from the programmable attenuator unamended.
In a second embodiment (Specification, page 12, lines 5-
19), element 46, a threshold detector, is the same as in the
first embodiment, and therefore outputs control signals C and1
C according to the incident intensity. Further, as shown in2
Figure 8, the signals are directed to control circuitry 51C,
which
(Specification, page 12, lines 15-19).
change[s] dynamically the integration times of the
sense elements in the image sensor 51 so as to step
down the image signals output by the image sensor 51
corresponding to elements in the image sensor at
which the incident light intensity exceeds the
predetermined intensity value.
In other words, the control circuitry in the second embodiment
functions the same way as the programmable attenuator in the
first embodiment, thereby reducing the voltage level only for
intensities exceeding the threshold.
Appeal No. 96-1628
Application No. 08/167,617
10
In the third embodiment a programmable filter replaces
the programmable attenuator, but functions the same way. In
particular, (Specification, page 12, lines 23-32)
in order to step down the output signal for sense
elements in the image sensor 33 for which the
incident light exceeds the predetermined value, a
programmable filter 52 is provided. The control
signals C /C output by the threshold detector 46 are1 2
used to cause the control circuitry 52C of the
programmable filter to adjust the transmission
coefficients for those areas of the filter at which
the intensity exceeds the aforementioned
predetermined value. The programmable filter is
preferably implemented in the form of a liquid
crystal display, or the like, where individual
elements in the display can be set to different
transmission values.
Similarly, the next embodiment (Specification, page 12, lines
33-37) includes programmable attenuator 48, as in the first
embodiment.
In further embodiments, programmable attenuators 68,
control circuitry 51C in combination with control logic 62,
and programmable filter 52, are described to be the same as
and/or to function primarily the same as programmable
attenuators 48, control circuitry 51C in combination with
control logic 62, and
Appeal No. 96-1628
Application No. 08/167,617
11
programmable filter 52, respectively, of previous embodiments.
(See Specification, page 13, lines 9-12 and 21-32, and page
14,
lines 2-9.) Additionally, appellant states (Specification,
page 14, lines 30-35) that
the programmable filter could be incorporated as an
integral part of an integrated image sensor with the
array of optical filter elements of the programmable
filter overlying the array of sense elements of the
image sensor. The array of filter elements (e.g.
LCD elements) could be formed as a set of further
layers of integration over those for the sense
elements.
Accordingly, the specification clearly provides a
corresponding structure for the "means . . . for selectively
causing a reduction in the voltage levels of said video image
signals corresponding to said respective areas." Further, the
corresponding structure attenuates only those intensities
exceeding the threshold. Therefore, we find that the claim is
limited to a means that reduces the voltage level of video
images that correspond to intensities above the threshold.
Asao does not limit the attenuation to brightnesses above the
threshold.
Appeal No. 96-1628
Application No. 08/167,617
12
Consequently, Asao does not meet every limitation of the
claims, and we must reverse the rejection.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1, 11, 21,
22, 24, and 31 through 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and claim
12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LEE E. BARRETT ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
vsh
Appeal No. 96-1628
Application No. 08/167,617
13
WILLIAM S. FROMMER
CURTIS, MORRIS & SAFFORD
530 FIFTH AVE.
NEW YORK , NY 10036