Ex Parte Wang

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 29, 2016

13096837 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/096,837 04/28/2011
22879 7590 10/03/2016
HP Inc,
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Yu-Wei Wang
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
82275848 5365
EXAMINER
CHIU, WESLEY JASON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2663
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/03/2016 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
ipa.mail@hp.com
barbl@hp.com
yvonne.bailey@hp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte YU-WEI WANG
Appeal2015-004236
Application 13/096,837 1
Technology Center 2600
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JON M. WRGOV AN, and
KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final rejection of claims 3-9, 11-14, 16-19, 21-26, and 28-31.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant indicates the Real Party in Interest is Hewlett-Packard
Development Company, LP. App. Br. 1.
2 Claims 1, 2, 10, 15, 20, and 27 are cancelled. App. Br. i (Claims App'x).
Appeal2015-004236
Application 13/096,837
Invention
The claimed invention relates to an image sensor calibrated by
generating a plurality of spectral characterizations for the image sensor and
defining a plurality of color corrections for the image sensor based on the
plurality of spectral characterizations and a reference spectral
characterization. Abstract.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 21 is reproduced below with disputed limitations
emphasized:
21. A non-transitory processor-readable medium storing code
representing instructions to cause a processor to:
generate a plurality of spectral characterizations for an
image sensor, each spectral characterization from the plurality of
spectral characterizations associated with an image window from
a plurality of image windows of the image sensor;
define a color correction for each image window from the
plurality of image windows based on the spectral
characterization associated with that image window and a
reference spectral characterization;
apply the corresponding color correction to the spectral
characterization associated with each respective image window
to produce a respective corrected spectral characterization; and
correlate the corrected spectral characterization of each
image window relative to an emission spectrum of a target
illuminant, wherein the correlating comprises combining values
of the corrected spectral characterization for each image
window with corresponding values of the emission spectrum of
the target illuminant.
2
Appeal2015-004236
Application 13/096,837
Rejections
Claims 11-13 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wang et al. (WO 2009/142641 Al; pub. Nov. 26, 2009),
Lee et al. (US 2010/0150439 Al; pub. June 17, 2010), and Sano (US
2006/0103738 Al; pub. May 18, 2006). (Final Act. 7-11.)
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wang, Lee, Sano, and Kuno et al. (US 2008/0278592 Al;
pub. Nov. 13, 2008). (Final Act. 11-12.)
Claims 3-8, 16, 18-19, 21, 23-24 and 26 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wang and Lee. (Final Act. 12-
20.)
Claims 9 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wang, Lee, and Kuno. (Final Act. 20-21.)
Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wang, Lee, and Kim et al. (US 2006/0290957 Al; pub.
Dec. 28, 2006). (Final Act. 21-22.)
Claim 30 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wang, Lee, Sano, and Ng et al. (US 2007 /0027651 Al;
pub. Feb. 1, 2007). (Final Act. 22-23.)
Claim 31 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wang, Lee, Sano, and Li (US 2009/0147098 Al; pub.
June 11, 2009). (Final Act. 23-24.)
Claims 28 and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wang, Lee, and Ng. (Final Act. 24--25.)
Claim 29 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wang, Lee, and Li. (Final Act. 25-26.)
3
Appeal2015-004236
Application 13/096,837
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections and the evidence of
record in light of Appellant's arguments that the Examiner has erred. We
disagree with Appellant's arguments and conclusions. We adopt as our own,
( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Office Action
from which this appeal is taken and (2) the findings and reasons set forth in
the Examiner's Answer. We concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner and further highlight specific findings and argument for emphasis
as follows.
Independent Claims 21 and 16
Appellant contends the Examiner erred rejecting independent claims
21 and 16 because the combination of Wang and Lee fails to teach or
suggest "correlat[ing] the corrected spectral characterization of each image
window relative to an emission spectrum of a target illuminant, wherein the
correlating comprises combining values of the corrected spectral
characterization for each image window with corresponding values of the
emission spectrum of the target illuminant," as recited in independent claim
21, and as similarly recited in independent claim 16. App. Br. 6-9, 11;
Reply Br. 2-5. Appellant argues that neither Wang nor Lee provides any
teaching or hint of combining the references in the manner proffered by the
Examiner. App. Br. 7-9; Reply Br. 3, 4. Appellant also argues Lee
correlates white balance parameters with the average RGB values of a single
effective area, not with the corrected spectral characterization for a plurality
of image windows as recited in claim 21. App. Br. 8, 9; Reply Br. 4, 5.
4
Appeal2015-004236
Application 13/096,837
The Examiner finds, however, and we agree:
Wang teaches applying a color correction matrix to sensor pixel
values Rsensor, Grsensor, Gbsensor and Bsensor' to produce the
corrected pixel values Rcorr, Grcorr, Gbcorr, and Bcorr to
prevent different image windows from having different spectral
responses from each other. That is, the color correction matrix
allows each window at different spatial locations to have the
same response. Lee teaches a form of white balance to allow the
image to represent their true colors regardless of color
temperature by the light source the image is photographed in
(Lee, Paragraphs 0005-0006). The white balance parameters
calculated in Lee are applied to the input image to uniformly
correct for the light source (Lee, Paragraphs 0031, 0077-0078).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention
of Wang with the method of correlating a spectral
characterization of each image window relative to an emission
spectrum of a target illuminant as seen in Lee to correct the
corrected spectral characterization of each image window for
white balance with respect to the target illuminate (Lee,
Paragraphs 0005-0006).
Ans. 26, 27.
The Examiner goes on to find, and we agree, that one of ordinary skill
in the art would:
first perform the method of Wang which applies a color
correction matrix to the sensor pixel values Rsensor, Grsensor,
Gbsensor and Bsensor to produce an image with the corrected
pixel values Rcorr, Grcorr, Gbcorr, and Bcorr to prevent different
image windows from having different spectral responses from
each other. Then, perform the method of Lee to white balance
the corrected image containing the corrected pixel values Rcorr,
Grcorr, Gbcorr, and Bcorr so that the image colors are able to
represent their true colors regardless of color temperature by the
light source the image is photographed in. In other words, the
white balance is performed on the corrected pixel values (Rcorr,
5
Appeal2015-004236
Application 13/096,837
Grcorr, Gbcorr, and Bcorr) of Wang.
Ans. 27.
In identifying a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary
skill in the relevant field to combine the prior art teachings, the Examiner
must provide some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness. KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). A reason to combine teachings from the prior art
"may be found in explicit or implicit teachings within the references
themselves, from the ordinary knowledge of those skilled in the art, or from
the nature of the problem to be solved." WMS Gaming Inc. v. Int'! Game
Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citing In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d
1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). The Examiner has articulated a sufficient
reason to combine Wang and Lee in the manner described with a rational
underpinning to support the conclusion of obviousness. See Final Act. 14.
Appellant has not demonstrated to us why the Examiner's rationale is
erroneous.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that the
Examiner erred in finding the combination of Wang and Lee teaches or
suggests "correlate[ing] the corrected spectral characterization of each image
window relative to an emission spectrum of a target illuminant, wherein the
correlating comprises combining values of the corrected spectral
characterization for each image window with corresponding values of the
emission spectrum of the target illuminant," as recited in independent claim
21, and as similarly recited in independent claim 16. Therefore, we sustain
the Examiner's rejection of these claims.
6
Appeal2015-004236
Application 13/096,837
Independent Claim j j
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim
11 because the combination of Wang, Lee, and Sano fail to teach or suggest
"comput[ing] a correlation factor for each image window from the plurality
of windows by correlating the color corrected spectral characterization of
that image window relative to an emission spectrum of a target illuminant,"
as recited in independent claim 11. App. Br. 14, 15; Reply Br. 8-10.
Appellant argues:
the average R, G and B values in Lee do not constitute the color
corrected spectral characterization of claim 11 that reduces a
difference in color for a given color of light in different image
windows in the plurality of windows. Therefore, combining the
average R, G and B values to produce respective first and second
white balance parameters do not constitute correlating the color
corrected spectral characterization of the image window relative
to an emission spectrum of a target illuminant to compute a
correlation factor for the image window, as claimed.
App. Br. 15.
The Examiner responds, however, and we agree:
Lee is not relied upon to teach applying the corresponding color
correction to the spectral characterization associated with each
respective image window to produce a color corrected spectral
characterization that reduces a difference in color for a given
color of light in different image windows of the plurality of
windows. This limitation is taught by Wang. Wang teaches
applying the corresponding color correction (Wang, Paragraph
0041, Line 3 "correction coefficients") to the spectral
characterization (Wang, Paragraph 0038, Equation, (Rsensor, Gr
sensor, Gbsensor and Bsensor)) associated with each respective image
window to produce a color respective corrected spectral
characterization (Wang, Paragraph 0038, Equation, (Rcorr. Grcorr.
Gbcorr. and Bcorr)) that reduces a difference in color for a given
color of light in different image windows of the plurality of
windows (Wang, Paragraphs 0046-004 7, Wang teaches applying
7
Appeal2015-004236
Application 13/096,837
a color correction matnx to sensor pixel values Rsensor,
Grsensor, Gbsensor and Bsensor' to produce the corrected pixel
values Rcorr, Grcorr, Gbcorr, and Bcorr to prevent different
image windows from having different spectral responses from
each other.).
Ans. 36, 37.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that the
Examiner erred in finding the combination of Wang, Lee, and Sano teaches
or suggests "comput[ing] a correlation factor for each image window from
the plurality of windows by correlating the color corrected spectral
characterization of that image window relative to an emission spectrum of a
target illuminant," as recited in independent claim 11. Therefore, we sustain
the Examiner's rejection of claim 11.
Dependent Claim 3
Appellant contends the Examiner erred rejecting dependent claim 3
because the combination of Wang and Lee fails to teach or suggest "access
[to J an em1ss10n spectrum for each illuminant channel from a plurality of
illuminant channels," as recited in claim 3. App. Br. 9, 1 O; Reply Br. 5, 6.
Appellant argues Wang's reference to "a known spectral property of a
set of lights or other type of device" does not provide a specific teaching of
accessing an emission spectrum for each illuminant channel from a plurality
of illuminant channels. App. Br. 9 (citing Wang i-f 32). Appellant argues
Wang merely refers to one known spectral property of a set of lights and
does not refer to generating spectral characterizations associated with image
windows based on the emission spectrums for the respective plurality of
illuminant channels. Id.
The Examiner finds, however, and we agree:
8
Appeal2015-004236
Application 13/096,837
Wang teaches accessing an emission spectrum for each of a red,
green and blue illuminate channel (Wang, Figs. 3 and 4).
Further, the generating of the spectral characterization is based
on the plurality of illuminant average pixel value sets and the
emission spectrum for each illuminant channel from the plurality
of illuminant channels. Citation of paragraph 0032 of Wang is
cited to show the source in which of the plurality of illuminant
channels is generated. Therefore, the claim language of "access
an emission spectrum for each illuminant channel from a
plurality of illuminant channels" is met since the red, green and
blue illuminate channel are the plurality of illuminant channels.
Ans. 31.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that the
Examiner erred in finding the combination of Wang and Lee teaches or
suggests "access [to] an emission spectrum for each illuminant channel from
a plurality of illuminant channels," as recited in claim 3. Therefore, we
sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claim 3.
Dependent Claim 4
Appellant contends the Examiner erred rejecting dependent claim 4
because the combination of Wang and Lee fails to teach or suggest "define
an illuminant average pixel value set for each illuminant channel based on
the raw image for that illuminant channel from the plurality of illuminant
channels," as recited in claim 4. App. Br. 10, 11; Reply Br. 7, 8. Appellant
argues Wang refers to averaging pixel data from each window to produce
normalized spectral response curves, and that there is no indication of
defining an illuminant average pixel value set for each illuminant channel of
a plurality of illuminant channels. App. Br. 11.
The Examiner finds, however, and we agree, the language of claim 4:
does not further define the limitations for an "illuminant average
pixel value set." The averaging of pixel data from each window
9
Appeal2015-004236
Application 13/096,837
to produce normalized spectral response curves [in Wang] is seen
to be the "illuminant average pixel value set." Further, the
averaging of pixel data from each window to produce normalized
spectral response curves is based on raw sensor data from the
plurality of illuminant channels (Wang, Figs. 3 and 4, red, green
and blue illuminate channel).
Ans. 32.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that the
Examiner erred in finding the combination of Wang and Lee teaches or
suggests "define an illuminant average pixel value set for each illuminant
channel based on the raw image for that illuminant channel from the
plurality of illuminant channels," as recited in claim 4. Therefore, we
sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claim 4.
Dependent Claims 28 and 32
Appellant contends the Examiner erred rejecting dependent claims 28
and 32 because the combination of Wang, Lee, and Ng fails to teach or
suggest "comparing an amount of optical energy captured by the image
sensor in the given image window for a particular illuminant channel to an
amount of optical energy output by the particular illuminant channel," as
recited in dependent claim 28, and similarly recited in dependent claim 32.
App. Br. 12, 13. Appellant argues that:
the comparing that is performed in Ng is the comparing of the
output recorded by one sensor with the output recorded by
another sensor. In contrast, claim 28 cites "comparing an amount
of optical energy captured by the image sensor in the given
image window for a particular illuminant channel to an amount
of optical energy output by the particular illuminant
channel." Comparing outputs of two sensors, as performed in
Ng, is clearly different from comparing an amount of optical
energy captured by an image sensor with an amount of optical
energy output by a particular illuminant channel.
10
Appeal2015-004236
Application 13/096,837
App. Br. 13.
The Examiner finds, however, and we agree,
Ng teaches comparing the optical energy captured by the color
sensor (Ng, Fig. 4, Element 10) output from the particular
illuminant channel with the optical energy captured by the CIE
camera (Ng, Fig. 4, Element 42) output from the particular
illuminant channel (Ng, Paragraphs 0025-0027). Therefore, the
color sensor (Ng, Fig. 4, Element 10) compares an amount of
optical energy captured by the color sensor to an amount of
optical energy output by the particular illuminant channel. That
is, the amount of optical energy captured by the image sensor is
compared with the amount of optical energy output by the
particular illuminant channel indirectly by use of the CIE camera.
Ans. 34, 35.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that the
Examiner erred in finding the combination of Wang, Lee, and Ng teaches or
suggests "comparing an amount of optical energy captured by the image
sensor in the given image window for a particular illuminant channel to an
amount of optical energy output by the particular illuminant channel," as
recited in dependent claim 28, and similarly recited in dependent claim 32.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 28 and
32.
Remaining Claims 5-9, 12-14, 17-19, 22-26, and 29-31
Appellant has not presented separate arguments with respect to claims
5-9, 12-14, 17-19, 22-26, and 29-31. See App. Br. 5-17. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims for the reasons stated above.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv); In re King, 801F.2d1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir.
1986); In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
11
Appeal2015-004236
Application 13/096,837
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejection of claims 3-9, 11-14, 16-19,
21-26, and 28-31.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
12