Ex Parte Lin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 3, 2012

11320656 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 3, 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. 11/320,656 12/30/2005 Yen-Yu Lin SUND 708 8963 23995 7590 12/03/2012 RABIN & Berdo, PC 1101 14TH STREET, NW SUITE 500 WASHINGTON, DC 20005 EXAMINER OSINSKI, MICHAEL S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2662 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/03/2012 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 YEN-YU LIN, CHANG-JUNG KAO, and SHU-WEN TENG ____________ Appeal 2011-009276 Application 11/320,656 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JAMES R. HUGHES, and GREGORY J. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-009276 Application 11/320,656 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 1-3, 9-16, and 22 (App. Br. 3). Claims 4-8 and 18-21 were withdrawn (id.). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. The Invention Exemplary Claim 1 follows: 1. An apparatus for adjusting display-related setting of an electronic device, comprising: an image sensing device, for capturing a plurality of images and outputting a plurality of image signals accordingly; an image signal processing unit, coupled to the image sensing device, for processing the image signals and outputting a plurality of image luminance values accordingly; and a determination device, coupled to the image sensing device and the image signal processing unit, for controlling the image sensing device to capture the images according to a plurality of exposure time values, and adjusting the display- related setting of the electronic device according to the image luminance values and the exposure time values. Claims 1-3 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Horiuchi (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2003/0095192 A1, published May 22, 2003) (Ans. 3-6). Claims 9-12 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Horiuchi in view of Ejima (U.S. Pat. No. 5,412,424, issued May 2, 1995) (Ans. 6-9). Appeal 2011-009276 Application 11/320,656 3 Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Horiuchi in view of Ejima and Lee (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2004/0252208 A1, published December 16, 2004) (Ans. 9-10). Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Horiuchi in view of Lee (Ans. 10-11). Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Horiuchi in view of Takaiwa (U.S. Pat. No. 4,894,723, issued January 16, 1990) (Ans. 11-12). FACTUAL FINDINGS We adopt the Examiner’s factual findings as set forth in the Answer (Ans. 3, et seq.). ISSUES Appellants’ responses to the Examiner’s positions present the following issues: 1. Did the Examiner err in finding that Horiuchi discloses “adjusting the display-related setting of the electronic device according to the image luminance values and the exposure time values,” (emphasis added), as recited in independent claims 1 and 14? 2. Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Horiuchi and Ejima teaches or suggests that “the display-related setting is selecting a tone reproduction curve” (emphasis added), as recited in dependent claim 9 and as similarly recited in dependent claim 22? Appeal 2011-009276 Application 11/320,656 4 ANALYSIS Issue 1 – Anticipation Rejection of Claims 1 and 14 Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1 and 14 as anticipated because Horiuchi does not disclose the claim limitation emphasized above (App. Br. 6-7). In support of their contention, Appellants argue that “the operation of choosing shutter speed in Horiuchi is different from adjusting the display-related setting of the electronic device as recited in claim 1” (id. at 8). The Examiner found, however, “that the final exposure time/shutter speed determined and implemented by the camera of Horiuchi, derived using images obtained according to a plurality of different exposure times and the resulting luminance values thereof, fully meets the requirements of the claimed ‘display-related settings’” (Ans. 15). We agree with the Examiner’s finding. Our reviewing Court requires us to give a claim its broadest reasonable meaning consistent with the Specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Appellants’ Specification discloses that the display-related settings include settings that affect the pixel values of the captured image (¶¶ [0030]-[0032], [0035], and [0038]). And Horiuchi discloses that the exposure time for an image is determined from the luminance values of a pre-photographing step (¶ [0064]). Horiuchi further discloses that the display “reproduces and displays image data recorded on the memory card” (¶ [0093]). That is, the exposure time and luminance values affect the display in Horiuchi. Accordingly, under the broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification, Horiuchi’s disclosure that the image luminance value and exposure time values affect the display qualifies as the adjusting of the display-related settings as recited Appeal 2011-009276 Application 11/320,656 5 in independent claims 1 and 14. Thus, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 14 as anticipated. Issue 2 – Obviousness Rejection of Claims 9 and 22 Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claims 9 and 22 as obvious because the combination of Horiuchi and Ejima does not teach or suggest the claim limitation emphasized above (App. Br. 11). In support of their contention, Appellants argue that “there is no disclosure or suggestion that Ejima’s central calculation processing portion 10 adjusts the display-related setting to select a TRC according to the image luminance values and the exposure time values” (id. at 12). As explained supra, however, Horiuchi discloses adjusting the display-related settings according to the image luminance values and the exposure time values. Moreover, the Examiner found that Ejima teaches that “the camera uses luminance information of a plurality of captured image data segments in order to determine a proper gamma correction curve, corresponding to the claimed tone reproduction curve” (Ans. 23). We agree with the Examiner’s finding. Ejima discloses the selection of a gamma correction curve in accordance with the luminance values: If the difference between the greatest output and the smallest output among them is between the maximum value and the minimum value prestored in the central calculation processing portion 10, it is judged that the difference in quantity of light between the portions of the object to be photographed is of a medium degree, and the switch 24c is closed and the other switches 24b and 24d are opened so that gray scale modification may be done in the second gray scale modification circuit 24f having the characteristic of γ2. . . . Appeal 2011-009276 Application 11/320,656 6 (Ejima, col. 11, ll. 39-49). Accordingly, we find that the claim limitation of adjusting the tone reproduction curve according to the image luminance values and the exposure time values is a combination of Horiushi’s teachings of adjusting the settings of a display according to the image luminance value and the exposure time values and Ejima’s teaching of adjusting the gamma correction curve according to the luminance values that yields predictable results. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Appellants also contend that “one of ordinary skill in the art would not combine Horiuchi and Ejima” (App. Br. 13). In support of their contention, Appellants argue that “Ejima’s arrangement does not need to acquire more photos, in contrast to Horiuchi’s” (id. at 13-14). Appellants further argue that “Horiuchi fails to disclose or suggest the gray scale modification characteristic ] and the shutter speed are chosen according to only one photo” (id. at 14). But we agree with the Examiner’s finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Ejima’s teachings of the gamma curve selection with Horiuchi’s device “because it would enable the device of Horiuchi to select a proper gamma curve for performing gradation correction/adjustment in order to improve the contrast of the captured image signals according to luminance information obtained at the plurality of exposure times” (Ans. 7). Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejections of dependent claims 9 and 22. We also find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of the other claims on appeal (i.e., claims 2, 3, 10-13, 15, and 16) because Appellants did not set forth any separate or distinct arguments for those claims (see App. Br. 10 and 14). Appeal 2011-009276 Application 11/320,656 7 DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-3 and 14 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and claims 9-13, 15, 16, and 22 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 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 llw