Ex Parte Yamada

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 26, 2010

11175370 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 26, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/175,370 07/07/2005 Rui Yamada SON-3375 4407
23353 7590 11/29/2010
RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC
LION BUILDING
1233 20TH STREET N.W., SUITE 501
WASHINGTON, DC 20036
EXAMINER
GUERTIN, AARON M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2629
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/29/2010 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte RIU YAMADA
____________________

Appeal 2009-008177
Application 11/175,370
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before JOHN C. MARTIN, ALLEN R. MacDONALD and
BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

Opinion for the Board filed by MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.

Opinion Dissenting filed by MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

MacDONALD, 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 2009-008177
Application 11/175,370

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
1-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Exemplary Claim(s)
Exemplary independent claim 1 under appeal reads as follows:
1. A user interface providing device, wherein:
the user interface providing device provides a user interface that
handles correction of a pixel value of each of pixels forming image data; and
the user interface includes a hue setting unit for selecting a pixel by
designating a hue;
wherein the device analyzes the image data to identify over exposed
pixels, false-color pixels, and correctly set pixels, and corrects the values of
the overexposed and false-color pixels based on the value of the other pixels.
Rejections
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-9 and 13-15 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Graves,
US 7,215,813 B2, and Hampshire, US 2004/0234126 A1.
2. The Examiner rejected dependent claims 10-12 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over combination of Graves,
Hampshire, and Rai, US 6,337,692 B1.
Appellant’s Contentions
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-15
because “Hampshire does not teach or suggest the feature of analyzing
‘false-color pixels’” (App. Br. 8). Appellant asserts that instead, Hampshire
Appeal 2009-008177
Application 11/175,370

3
teaches false-color space which is a completely different phenomenon and is
used to visualize light outside of the visible spectrum by giving it a false
color representation (App. Br. 6-7). Appellant contends that Hampshire’s
false-color space is different from Appellant’s false-color pixels (App. Br.
8). Appellant argues that Hampshire does not teach or suggest false-color
pixels because “a false-color pixel is [defined in Appellant’s Specification
as] ‘a phenomenon in which an incorrect pixel value is set due to chromatic
aberration, which causes a false color, a purplish false color appears near an
overexposed highlight pixel whose luminance level is saturated’” (Reply Br.
4, citing Spec. 2:23-3:2).

ISSUE ON APPEAL
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-15 as being obvious
because Hampshire fails to disclose the “false-color pixel” limitation?

ANALYSIS
We agree with the Appellant’s contentions above.

CONCLUSIONS
(1) Appellant has established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1-15 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(2) On this record, claims 1-15 have not been shown to be
unpatentable.
Appeal 2009-008177
Application 11/175,370

4
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-15 are reversed.

REVERSED

Appeal 2009-008177
Application 11/175,370

5
MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge, dissenting.

I respectfully dissent. In my view, the Specification describes several
examples of false-color pixels without providing a clear definition of the
claim term “false-color pixels” (claim 1). First, the Specification explains
that a false color may be caused by chromatic aberration (without
mentioning the color purple). Spec. 2:11-19. In the next paragraph, the
Specification explains that a “purplish false color” known as a “purple
fringe” can appear near an overexposed highlight pixel whose luminance
level is saturated:
For example, as a phenomenon in which an incorrect
pixel value is set due to chromatic aberration, which causes a
false color, a purplish false color appears near an overexposed
highlight pixel whose luminance level is saturated. This
purplish false color is known as a purple fringe.
Id. at 2:23-3:3. Then, in the remainder of this paragraph and in the
succeeding paragraph, the Specification provides the following description
of the conditions that can cause false-color pixels:
Apart from purple fringes, a pixel whose pixel value is not
specified or a pixel whose pixel value is incorrectly set may
exist among pixels forming image data due to various types of
trouble caused by a condition for photographing an image and
data processing performed when the image is photographed.
It is very difficult for general users to efficiently select a
pixel having a false color, which appears partially, and correct
such [a] pixel.
Id. at 3:3-9-11.
Furthermore, Appellants’ Briefs provide a number of different
definitions of a “false-color pixel”:
(1) “The present application defines false-color pixels as the purple-
fringe pixels found at the border between the over exposed and correct color
Appeal 2009-008177
Application 11/175,370

6
pixels whose luminance levels are saturated (see Fig. 1A and 1B).” (Appeal
Br. 7.)
(2) “A false-color pixel, as defined in the specification, is a physical
pixel holding an incorrect color value as the result of over-saturation (over
exposure from visible light) caused when the CCD in a camera or film
absorbs too many photons (from a light source).” (Id. at 8 (emphasis
omitted).)
(3) “[T]he definition that must be applied to ‘false-color pixels’ is the
same as that which is employed in the specification, i.e., a ‘color [on a
digital image that] appears near an overexposed highlight pixel whose
luminance level is saturated.’” (id. at 9 (bracketed phrase in original).)
(4) “Appellant's concept of false-color pixels . . . relate[s] to colors
resulting from hardware limitations, i.e., CCD saturation.” (Reply Br. 3.)
(5) “A false-color pixel, as defined in the specification, is a physical
pixel holding an incorrect color value as the result of chromatic aberration
caused when the CCD in a camera or film absorbs too many photons or
distorted light (from a light source).” (id. at 4 (emphasis omitted).)
Because Appellants have not established that the Specification
provides a clear definition of the claim 1 term “false-color pixels,” I am
unpersuaded by their argument that the rejection should be reversed on the
ground that Hampshire fails to disclose false-color pixels. I would
accordingly affirm the rejection of all of the appealed claims.

Appeal 2009-008177
Application 11/175,370

7
KIS

RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC
LION BUILDING
1233 20TH STREET N.W., SUITE 501
WASHINGTON, DC 20036