Ex Parte Ostromek et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 21, 2012

10759959 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 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. 10/759,959 01/16/2004 Timothy E. Ostromek 46030/P045US/10407184 8182 80255 7590 09/21/2012 Marsteller & Associates, P.C. P.O. Box 803302 Dallas, TX 75380-3302 EXAMINER CUTLER, ALBERT H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2622 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/21/2012 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 TIMOTHY E. OSTROMEK, ANTONIO V. BACARELLA, and RODNEY L. DOSTER ____________________ Appeal 2010-006060 Application 10/759,959 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before KARL D. EASTHOM, JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, and THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, Administrative Patent Judges. ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-006060 Application 10/759,959 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1- 3, 5-9, 11-15, and 17-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. THE INVENTION Appellants state that the invention relates generally to the field of electro-optical systems and more specifically to combining multiple spectral bands to generate an image. (Spec. 1.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for generating an image, comprising: receiving light associated with a plurality of spectral bands; repeating the following for each spectral band associated with the light: receiving an electrical signal at an electro-optical element; changing an optical property of the electro-optical element in response to the electrical signal to filter for a spectral band; and transmitting the spectral band to a sensor; sensing the spectral bands at the sensor; combining the spectral bands to generate a composite signal, wherein combining the spectral bands to generate the composite signal comprises: accessing a function of the spectral bands; and multiplexing the spectral bands in accordance with the function to combine the spectral bands, said function causing said spectral bands to be combined using at least one of: adding and weighted combining; and generating an image from the composite signal. Appeal 2010-006060 Application 10/759,959 3 (Appeal Brief, Claims Appendix 1 12.) THE REJECTIONS I. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Daly (EP 1,051,045 A2, published November 8, 2000). (Examiner’s Answer, dated September 29, 2009, “Ans.” 3-14.) II. The Examiner rejected claims 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Daly in view of Goillot et al. (US 5,936,245, published August 10, 1999). (Ans. 14- 16.) III. The Examiner rejected claims 2, 3, 8, 9, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Daly in view of Wagner (US 5,528,295, issued June 18, 1996). (Ans. 16-23.) IV. The Examiner rejected claims 6, 12, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Daly in view of Handschy et al. (US 5,347,378, issued September 13, 1994). (Ans. 23-28.) V. The Examiner rejected claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Daly in view of Wagner and further in view of Handschy. (Ans. 28-34.) ISSUE Initially, we observe that Appellants’ arguments against each of the independent claims subject to Rejection I raise the same or similar issues. As such, our analysis will focus on representative claim 1, which contains claim limitations representative of the arguments made by Appellants pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Because Appellants rely on 1 Appeal Brief filed June 19, 2009, hereinafter “App. Br.” and “Claims App’x,” respectively. Appeal 2010-006060 Application 10/759,959 4 arguments regarding Rejection I (claim 1) in arguing Rejections II-V (App. Br. 9-10), our analysis of Rejection I similarly applies to Rejections II-V. The dispositive issue on appeal is: Whether the Examiner erred in finding that Daly discloses “said function causing said spectral bands to be combined using at least one of: adding and weighted combining,” as recited in claim 1? DISCUSSION Regarding the step of causing spectral bands to be combined using at least one of adding and weighted combining, the Examiner relied on Daly. (Ans. 5.) Daly discloses, inter alia, a system for field sequential color image capture that filters a scene through a color filter to produce first color components, divides the scene into multiple second color components, and combines the second color components into a frame image. (Daly, Col. 1, ll. 5-8; Col. 7, l. 50 – Col. 8, l. 17.) The Examiner found that Daly discloses combining the second color components in a field-to-frame combiner. (Ans. 5, citing Daly, Fig. 8; Col. 11, l. 57 – Col. 12, l. 1.) In so finding, the Examiner interpreted the “combining” of Daly as “adding” because the second color components, or fields, were “added” into one frame. (Ans. 5.) Appellants argue that Daly merely discloses combining and does not specifically disclose any particular technique for combining by the field-to- frame combiner, such as adding fields as recited in claim 1. (App. Br. 7-8.) Appellants contend that the Examiner does not explain how one of ordinary skill in the art would understand Daly’s combining to be additive, as opposed to being based upon some other transform. (App. Br. 8.) Appeal 2010-006060 Application 10/759,959 5 We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that Daly does not disclose combining spectral bands by adding, as recited in the claims. Appellants’ Specification states that: Image processing module 26 combines the different spectral bands to form a composite signal 32 by, for example, multiplexing the spectral bands. Spectral bands λi may be multiplexed according to a function f (λ0 , λ1, . . . , λn) of the spectral bands λi. For example, spectral bands λ1 and λ2 may be multiplexed according to a function f(λ1, λ2 )=λ1/λ2 , f(λ1, λ2)=λ1 + λ2 , or other suitable function. The function f(λ1, λ2 ) may combine spectral bands according to weights assigned to the spectral bands. For example, the spectral bands may be combined according to function f(λ1, λ2) = W1λ1/ W2λ2 , where W1 represents a weight assigned to spectral band λ1, and W2 represents a weight assigned to spectral band λ2. Any other method for combining the spectral bands, however, may be used. (Spec. 8, ll. 5-18) (emphasis added). While the Specification discloses adding in the manner suggested by Appellants (i.e. the particular technique of adding the spectral bands to each other), the Specification does not set forth a particular definition of “adding” that would preclude the Examiner’s interpretation of “adding” (i.e., adding the spectral bands into a frame). “Add” is commonly defined as “1. to unite or join to another or others to produce a greater number, quantity, size, or degree of importance,” and also as “5. to perform the arithmetic operation of addition.” THE RANDOM HOUSE COLLEGE DICTIONARY, Revised Edition, p. 16 (1982). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the term “adding” could have more than one meaning, including both (1) uniting or joining items together and (2) performing the arithmetic operation of addition. In this case, Daly discloses one way of adding, i.e., uniting or Appeal 2010-006060 Application 10/759,959 6 joining individual fields in order to create a frame in a field-to-frame combiner. (Fig. 8; Col. 11, l. 57 – Col. 12, l. 1.) Additionally, although Appellants argue that Daly fails to disclose the recited weighted combining (App. Br. 7-8), Appellants have not adequately explained why any other transform used by the field-to-frame combiner of Daly would not also be considered weighted combining. For example, in the Specification’s weighting example quoted supra, assigning a “weight” of 1 to W1 and W2 shows that the weighting and multiplexing examples result in the same function - λ1/λ2.. Even the listed functions not specified as weighted (i.e., f(λ1, λ2 )=λ1/λ2 , f(λ1, λ2)=λ1 + λ2 ) actually have bands mathematically weighted by some factor. In the former function, λ1 is weighted by 1/λ2 while in the latter function, λ1 and λ2 are each weighted by a factor of 1. Without an adequate explanation otherwise, any combining involves some transforming or processing which itself amounts to a mathematical “weighting” of each band – i.e., the output is a function of the input. Accordingly, we are not convinced of any error in the Examiner’s finding that Daly discloses “said function causing said spectral bands to be combined using at least one of: adding and weighted combining,” as recited in claim 1. Appeal 2010-006060 Application 10/759,959 7 DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejections. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). AFFIRMED ak