Ex Parte Kok et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 14, 2012

11267893 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 2012)

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. 11/267,893 11/04/2005 Chi Wah Kok 118555-158790 1528 25943 7590 12/17/2012 Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt PACWEST CENTER, SUITE 1900 1211 SW FIFTH AVENUE PORTLAND, OR 97204 EXAMINER BRIER, JEFFERY A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2678 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/17/2012 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte CHI WAH KOK and SUK HAN LAM ____________ Appeal 2012-012264 Application 11/267,893 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and MARC S. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judges. SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, and 6-24. Claims 2 and 5 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal 2012-012264 Application 11/267,893 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants’ invention relates to converting a multicolor image, in which each pixel only has a single color, into a full color image (Spec., col. 1, ll. 7-10).1 The invention solves the problem of abrupt hue changes in adjacent pixels by “smooth hue transition interpolation” (Spec., col. 1, ll. 63- 66). Appellants provide a new method for interpolating which determines the missing local green intensity value based on a known red color intensity value by using the average red and green in the area proximate to that pixel (Spec., col. 3, ll. 8-41). Exemplary Claim Independent claim 16 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows: 16. A digital-device-implemented method, comprising: deriving, by a digital device, for a pixel, a first local average color intensity value for a first color present in the pixel, based on color intensity values of the first color present in a first set of pixels proximate to the pixel; deriving, by the digital device, a second local average color intensity value for a second color not present in the pixel, based on color intensity values of the second color present in a second set of pixels proximate to the pixel; calculating and associating with the pixel, by the digital device, an interpolated color intensity value for the second color which is proportional to the second local average color intensity value and a color intensity value for the first color of the pixel 1 This Application is a Reissue application of U.S. Patent 6,642,932 B2, issued Nov. 4, 2003 (which was based on Application 09/950,636, filed Sep. 13, 2001). All references made in this opinion to the Specification will be to the column and line numbers of this issued patent. Appeal 2012-012264 Application 11/267,893 3 and which is inversely proportional to the first local average color intensity value; and generating, by the digital device, a digital image using the calculated interpolated color intensity value for the second color. The Examiner’s Rejections The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims: Cok US 4,642,678 Feb. 10, 1987 Adams, Jr. (Adams) US 5,652,621 Jul. 29, 1997 Rajeev Ramanath (Ramanath), Interpolation Method for the Bayer Color Array, Master of Science Thesis, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, (2000), pp. 1-170. Claims 1, 3, 4, and 6-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cok in view of Ramanath and Adams. (See Ans. 4- 17). Claims 1, 3, 4, and 6-24 stand rejected as being based upon a defective reissue declaration under 35 U.S.C. § 251. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.175(b)(1). (See Ans. 17-18). Appellants’ Contentions With respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of the claims, Appellants focus on claim 16 and contend that (a) the proposed combination would change the principle of operation of Cok because Equation 3 of Cok is essentially similar to previously discussed Equation 4 which averages the ratio values; (b) the proposed modification of Cok by Ramanath does not result in the claimed language; and (c) the Examiner has failed to provide an articulated reasoning to justify the combination (App. Br. 18-24). Appellants further argue the patentability of other claims based at least on Appeal 2012-012264 Application 11/267,893 4 similar reasons provided for claim 16 and on their dependency from their independent base claims (App. Br. 24). With respect to the claim rejection based upon a defective reissue declaration, Appellants contend that the amendments to the claims were made in order to overcome the Examiner’s objections based on indefinite claim language (App. Br. 24). Appellants argue that such changes to the claims constitute “an editorial ‘error’ and not an error ‘under 25 U.S.C. 251’,” and therefore, do not require a new reissue oath/declaration (id.). ISSUES 1. Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, and 6-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cok in view of Ramanath and Adams because the references fail to teach or suggest all the claim limitations? 2. Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, and 6-24 as being based upon a defective reissue declaration? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusion. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the rebuttals to arguments expressed by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (see Ans. 18-24). However, we highlight and address specific findings and arguments regarding claim 16 for emphasis as follows. Appeal 2012-012264 Application 11/267,893 5 Obviousness Rejection We specifically agree with the Examiner (Ans. 18-21), that Appellants’ interpretation of Equation 3 in Cok is not accurate in that Equation 3 is not exactly the same as Equation 4 and the discussed substitutions on pages 20 and 21 of the Appeal Brief should actually result in the equation shown on page 19 of the Answer. We further observe that claim 16 includes no recitation of noise or how noise component is added to the color correction factor and merely requires deriving average color intensity values for first and second colors present in first and second sets of pixels proximate to a pixel (see claim 16). In that regard, the Examiner relies on disclosure of Cok in columns 6 and 7 with respect to Equation 16 discussing interpolation of luminance values based on average luminance values surrounding a sample area (Ans. 21). We also agree with the Examiner’s discussion of Ramanath and Adams and the proposed modification to include the arithmetic average values in Equation 3 of Cok for calculating the interpolated chrominance value based on the derived color intensity values (see Ans. 20-21). Additionally, regarding Appellants’ contentions challenging the propriety of combining the references and whether the combination teaches or suggests all the claimed features, we agree with the Examiner’s analysis and reasoning. We specifically find that the Examiner has articulated (see Ans. 21-23) how the claimed features are met by the reference teachings with some rational underpinning to combine Ramanath’s and Adams’ teachings with Cok. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Appeal 2012-012264 Application 11/267,893 6 Defective Reissue Declaration We agree with the Examiner’s reasoning that amendments made to the claims to remove the indefinite term and overcome the claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, constitute changes that are “more than one of spelling, or grammar, or a typographical, editorial or clerical error” (Ans. 23). Therefore, contrary to Appellants’ position (Reply Br. 6) and consistent with MPEP §§ 1402 and 1414.01, the identified deficiencies that required amendments to the claims do actually “cause the patent to be deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid.” CONCLUSIONS On the record before us, we find that the Examiner did not err in: 1. Rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, and 6-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cok in view of Ramanath and Adams. 2. Rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, and 6-24 as being based upon a defective reissue declaration. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, and 6-24 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED msc