Ex Parte Youngers

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 9, 2007

09911912 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 9, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte KEVIN J. YOUNGERS
____________

Appeal No. 2006-3077
Application 09/911,912
Technology Center 2600
____________

Decided: February 9, 2007
____________

Before RUGGIERO, MACDONALD, and HOMERE, Administrative Patent
Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1
through 18 pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134. The Examiner indicated that claim
19 contains allowable subject matter. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b) to decide this appeal.
We reverse.
Appeal No. 2006-3077
Application No. 09/911,912

Invention
Appellant invented a method and system for adjusting color image data in
a processed array of pixels. The invention uses a scanner that includes: (1) a
photo-sensor array to convert the image data into an electrical signal, (2) an
A-to-D converter to convert the electrical signal into raw digital data, and (3)
a tone map to transform the raw digital data into corrected digital data.
Particularly, after scanning an image, each resulting color component of the
pixel (raw image data) is examined to determine whether it needs adjusting.
If the raw image data falls below the lower end of a predetermined threshold
interval, the raw image data belongs to the dark area of the image, and it is
preserved. If the raw image data falls above the upper end of the
predetermined threshold interval, the raw image belongs in the light area of
the image, and a tone map is selectively applied to the raw image data to
create a corrected image data. If, however, the raw image data falls between
the lower and upper ends of the predetermined threshold interval, the raw
image data is modified by interpolating between mid range values to smooth
the transitions between adjacent pixels in dark and light areas of the image.
2
Appeal No. 2006-3077
Application No. 09/911,912

Claims 12 and 13 are illustrative and representative of the claimed
invention. They read as follows:
12. A scanner, comprising:

A photo-sensor array for converting an image into an electrical signal;

an A-to-D converter to convert the electrical signal into raw digital
data;

a tone map for transforming the raw digital data into corrected digital
data;

the scanner configured to output the raw digital data when the raw
digital data is below a first pre-selected threshold, to output the corrected
digital data when the raw digital data is greater than a second pre-selected
value, and to output digital data that is interpolated between the raw digital
data and the corrected digital data when the raw digital data is between the
two thresholds.

13. A method of processing data contained in an array of pixels,
comprising:

defining a threshold;

defining a range around the threshold, the range having a top end and
a bottom end;

defining a tone map;

(a) reading a color component of a pixel;

(b) applying the tone map to the color component when the color
component is above the top of the high end;

(c) modifying the color component by interpolation when the color
component is below the top end of the high range and above the bottom end
of the low range, and; otherwise preserving the color component.
3
Appeal No. 2006-3077
Application No. 09/911,912

References
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Kishida US 5,287,418 Feb. 15, 1994
Hieda US 5,481,317 Jan. 02, 1996
Wu US 5,959,693 Sep. 28, 1999
Sugimoto US 6,215,529 B1 Apr. 10, 2001
Ishikawa US 6,636,229 B2 Oct. 21, 2003
(filed Mar. 09, 2001)

Farnung US 6,753,987 B1 Jun. 22, 2004
(filed Feb. 25, 2000)

Rejections at Issue
A. Claims 5 through 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (e) as being
anticipated by Farnung.
B. Claims 10 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Farnung.
C. Claims 1 through 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Sugimoto and Wu.
D. Claims 17 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Hieda, Sugimoto and Wu.
4
Appeal No. 2006-3077
Application No. 09/911,912

E. Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over the combination of Farnung, Kishida and Hieda.
F. Claims 13 through 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Farnung and Kishida.
G. Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over the combination of Farnung, Kishida and Ishikawa.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner,
the opinion refers to respective details in the Brief1 and the Examiner’s
Answer.2 This decision considers only those arguments submitted in the
Brief. Arguments that Appellant could have made but chose not to make in
the Brief are deemed to have been waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)
(vii)(eff. Sept. 13, 2004). See also In re Watts, 354 F.3d 1362, 1368,
69 USPQ2d 1453, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
OPINION
After considering the entire record before us, we do not agree with the
Examiner that claims 5 through 9 are properly rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Farnung. We also do not agree with
the Examiner that claims 10 through 16 are properly rejected under

1 Appellant filed a corrected Appeal Brief on Aug. 29, 2005.
2 The Examiner mailed an Examiner’s Answer on Dec. 2, 2005.
5
Appeal No. 2006-3077
Application No. 09/911,912

35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Farnung taken alone or in
various combinations with Kishida, Hieda or Ishikawa. Additionally, we do
not agree with the Examiner that claims 1 through 4, 17 and 18 are properly
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over various
combinations of Sugimoto, Wu and Hieda. Accordingly, we reverse the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 through 18 for the reasons set forth infra.
I. Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), is the Rejection of Claims 5
through 9 as Being Anticipated By Farnung Proper?

To make a prima facie case of anticipation of a claim under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102, the Examiner must show that the prior art reference relied upon
discloses every element of the claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326,
231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann Maschinenfabrik
GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ
481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Appellant argues that Farnung does not anticipate claim 5.
Particularly, Appellant contends that Farnung does not disclose the step of
modifying the color component of a pixel to smooth the transition between
color components of adjacent pixels. (Brief, pages 7 and 8).
6
Appeal No. 2006-3077
Application No. 09/911,912

To determine whether Farnung anticipates claim 5, we must first
determine the scope of the claim. We note that claim 5 reads in part as
follows:
[M] odifying the color component of the pixel to smooth
the transition between color components of adjacent pixels.

We note at page 6, Appellant’s specification states the following:
A sharp transition between output pixels that are tone
mapped and output pixels that are in the dark areas may create
image artifacts. It may be desirable to blend or smooth the
transition between the dark area pixels and the pixels modified
by the tone map (see figure 3). When a color component is in a
light area of the image (304) the tone map is used (306). If the
color component is in a transition area (308) the color
component may be blended or smoothed (310). When the color
component is in a dark area of the image the raw color
component may be used (312). There are many ways to define
which color components are in a transition area.

Thus, representative claim 1 does require that the color component of
a pixel be modified to smooth the transition between color components of
adjacent pixels.3

3 We note that the Examiner’s rejection improperly omitted this
limitation from the claim. Even under a reasonably broad construction of
claim 5, the cited limitation would be given patentable weight. We therefore
interpret the claim as follows: the color component of the pixel would be (1)
transformed if the pixel is greater than the lower threshold, (2) preserved if
the pixel is less than the upper threshold, (3) modified if the pixel falls
outside of the upper and lower thresholds.

7
Appeal No. 2006-3077
Application No. 09/911,912

Now, the question before us is what Farnung would have taught to
one of ordinary skill in the art? To answer this question, we find the
following facts:
1. At column 8, lines 26 through 67, Farnung states the following:
In particular, and as illustrated in FIG. 12, it is possible to have
the minimum point 700 and the maximum point 720 moved
proportionally with brightness changes in the midpoint 710. This
allows very dark and very light values to change proportional to
changes in brightness.

Alternatively, and with reference to FIG. 13, the minimum point
700 and the maximum point 720 can be fixed at (0, 0) and (100, 100),
respectively, and two new fixed points, the lower offset point 730 and
the upper offset point 740 added. The lower offset point 730 could be
placed between the minimum point 700 and the midpoint 710 at a
location determined by the system curve's black point, i.e., the point at
which all values below it are at the darkest output level. The upper
offset point 740 can be placed between the midpoint 710 and the
maximum point 720 at a location determined by the system curve's
white point, i.e., the point at which all values above it are at the
brightest output level. The resulting tone reproduction curve would be
1:1 between the minimum point and the lower offset point 730, and
between the upper offset point 740 and the maximum point 720
causing the corresponding values from the system curve to be
preserved during cascading. This method allows for adjustments to
affect only the mid range value between the lower offset point 730
and the upper offset point 740 in an image preserved darker and
lighter values.

Furthermore, and with reference to FIG. 14, the minimum point
700 and maximum point 720 can be fixed, and one new upper offset
point 750 added. The manipulation of the upper offset point 750, as
discussed in relation to the manipulation of the upper offset point 740
described in relation to FIG. 13 allows for the lighter values in an
image to be preserved, but causes darker values, excluding absolute
8
Appeal No. 2006-3077
Application No. 09/911,912

black, to be adjusted. It is to be further appreciated a similar
arrangement could be made with only a lower offset point and no
upper offset point. This would result in darker values in an image to
be preserved, but causing lighter values, excluding absolute white,
would be adjusted.
With the above discussion in mind, we find that one of ordinary skill
in the art would not have found that Farnung teaches the invention, as
recited in claim 5. Farnung discloses a method and system for determining
the contrast and brightness of an adjusted tone reproduction curve.
Particularly, Farnung discloses a lower and upper offset points, indicating
respectively darker and lighter values on the reproduction curve. Farnung
further discloses modifying the reproduction curve by placing additional
pixel component values ranging between the lower and upper offset points
of the curve.
We find that one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the present
invention, would have readily recognized that Farnung’s teachings do not
extend to modifying the reproduction curve by placing pixel values outside
of the lower and upper offset points on the curve. Consequently, the
ordinarily skilled artisan would have aptly appreciated, as did the Examiner,
that Farnung does not teach the step of “otherwise modifying the color
9
Appeal No. 2006-3077
Application No. 09/911,912

component of the pixel to smooth the transition between color components
of adjacent pixel,” as recited in claim 5. Therefore, the Examiner erred in
concluding that Farnung anticipates claims 5 through 9 even after
recognizing that Farnung does not teach the cited step.
After considering the entire record before us, we conclude that the
evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the particular art would not
have suggested to the ordinarily skilled artisan the invention as set forth in
claims 5 through 9. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 5 through 9.
II. Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, is the Rejection of Claims 10 through 16 as
being unpatentable over Farnung, taken alone, or in Various
Combinations with Kishida, Hieda or Ishikawa Proper?

In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner bears the
initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
See also In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir.
1984). The Examiner can satisfy this burden by showing that some
objective teaching in the prior art or knowledge generally available to one of
10
Appeal No. 2006-3077
Application No. 09/911,912

ordinary skill in the art suggests the claimed subject matter. In re Fine, 837
F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Only if this initial
burden is met does the burden of coming forward with evidence or argument
shift to the Appellants. Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at 1444. See
also Piasecki, 745 F.2d at 1472, 223 USPQ at 788. Thus, the examiner must
not only assure that the requisite findings are made, based on evidence of
record, but must also explain the reasoning by which the findings are
deemed to support the examiner’s conclusion. However, a suggestion,
teaching, or motivation to combine the relevant prior art teachings does not
have to be found explicitly in the prior art, as the teaching, motivation, or
suggestion may be implicit from the prior art as a whole, rather than
expressly stated in the references. The test for an implicit showing is what
the combined teachings, knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, and
the nature of the problem to be solved as a whole would have suggested to
those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987-88, 78
USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) citing In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365,
1370, 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1316-17 (Fed. Cir. 2000). See also In re Thrift,
298 F.3d 1357, 1363, 63 USPQ2d 2002, 2008 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
11
Appeal No. 2006-3077
Application No. 09/911,912

An obviousness analysis commences with a review and consideration
of all the pertinent evidence and arguments. “In reviewing the [E]xaminer’s
decision on appeal, the Board must necessarily weigh all of the evidence and
argument.” Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at 1444. “[T]he Board
must not only assure that the requisite findings are made, based on evidence
of record, but must also explain the reasoning by which the findings are
deemed to support the agency’s conclusion.” In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338,
1344, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Appellant argues that Farnung does not teach limitations of dependent
claims 10 and 11 because of their dependency on claim 5. Particularly,
Farnung does not teach modifying the color component of the pixel if the
pixel value falls outside the lower and upper offset points on the
reproduction curve. We have already addressed this argument in the
discussion of claims 5 through 9 above, and we agree with Appellant.
Regarding claims 12 through 16, Appellant asserts that Farnung does
not teach modifying mid-range values by interpolating between light and
dark areas of the image to blend the transitions between these areas when the
pixel component values fall between the lower and upper ends of the
threshold. Appellant further argues that neither Kishida nor Hieda nor
12
Appeal No. 2006-3077
Application No. 09/911,912

Ishikawa teaches such modification of mid-range value by interpolation. We
agree.
We find that the cited references are cumulative to Farnung. Kishida,
for example, teaches taking a weighted average of respective reference tone
values to obtain a modified reproduction curve. In addition, Hieda discloses
a gamma correction circuit that uses a reference signal to correct an output
signal. The ordinarily skilled artisan would have readily recognized that
these teachings, taken alone or in various combinations, do not amount to
interpolating image data to blend transitions between light and dark areas of
the image. Ishikawa, unfortunately, does not remedy such deficiencies.
After considering the entire record before us, we conclude that the
evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the particular art would not
have suggested to the ordinarily skilled artisan the invention as set forth in
claims 10 through 16. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 10 through 16.
III. Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, is the Rejection of Claims 1 through 4, 17
and 18 as being unpatentable over Various Combination of Sugimoto,
Wu and Hieda Proper?
Appellant argues that the various combinations of Sugimoto, Wu and
Hieda do not render claims 1 through 4, 17 and 18 obvious. Particularly, the
13
Appeal No. 2006-3077
Application No. 09/911,912

various combinations fail to teach the limitation of blending transition
between pixels in the image. We agree.
Sugimoto, like Hieda, discloses a gamma correction circuit that uses a
reference signal to correct an output signal. In addition, Wu discloses a
pixel adaptive noise reduction filter for filtering a current pixel in a digital
video signal. The ordinarily skilled artisan would have readily recognized
that these teachings, taken alone or in various combinations, do not amount
to blending transition between pixels in the image.
After considering the entire record before us, we conclude that the
evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the particular art would not
have suggested to the ordinarily skilled artisan the invention as set forth in
claims 1 through 4, 17 and 18. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1 through 4, 17 and 18.
CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing discussion, we have reversed the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 5 through 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. We have also
reversed the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 4 and 10 through 18
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

14
Appeal No. 2006-3077
Application No. 09/911,912

REVERSED

JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF
)
) PATENT
ALLEN R. MACDONALD )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
JEAN R. HOMERE )
Administrative Patent Judge )

JRH/ce
15
Appeal No. 2006-3077
Application No. 09/911,912

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ADMINISTRATION
P.O. BOX 272400
FORT COLLINS, CO 80527-2400

16