Ex Parte Schweng et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 3, 2012

10859797 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 3, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT AND TRIAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte DETLEF SCHWENG, TANER DOSLUOGLU, and HORST KNOEDGEN ____________ Appeal 2011-010364 Application 10/859,797 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and GREGORY J. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judge DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-010364 Application 10/859,797 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, and 15 (App. Br. 3). Claims 3-5, 7, 10, 13, and 16 were cancelled (id.). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. The Invention Exemplary claim 1 follows: 1. A digital color imager providing an extended luminance range and an improved color representation comprising red, green, blue and white pixels, wherein said white pixels are sensitive to broadband brightness values and are extended dynamic range pixels and wherein the red, green and blue pixels are non-extended dynamic range pixels. Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mathur (U.S. Patent No. 6,714,243 B1, issued March 30, 2004) in view of Levine (U.S. Patent No. 6,441,852 B1, issued August 27, 2002) (Ans. 4-5). Claims 6, 8, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yamagami (U.S. Patent No. 5,323,233, issued June 21, 1994) in view of Mathur and Levine (Ans. 6-7). Claims 11, 12, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yamagami in view of Recommendation ITU-R BT601-5(Recommendation ITU-R BT.601-5, Studio Encoding Parameters of Digital Television for Standard 4:3 and Wide-Screen 16:9 Aspect Ratios, 1-16 (1995), available at http://www.itu.int/dms_pubrec/itu-r/rec/bt/R-REC- BT.601-5-199510-S!!PDF-E.pdf), Mathur, and Levine (Ans. 7-10). Appeal 2011-010364 Application 10/859,797 3 ISSUE Appellants’ responses to the Examiner’s positions present the following issue: Can the claimed invention be distinguished from the prior art on the basis of the claim limitation: wherein said white pixels are sensitive to broadband brightness values and are extended dynamic range pixels and wherein the red, green and blue pixels are non-extended dynamic range pixels, (claim 1) (emphasis added)? ANALYSIS Appellants argue that independent claims 1, 6, and 11 are not obvious because the combination of Mathur and Levine does not teach or suggest the claim limitation emphasized above (App. Br. 7). But we conclude that Appellants’ arguments urging patentability are predicated on non-functional descriptive material, i.e., extended dynamic range pixels and non-extended dynamic range pixels. The claim limitation in dispute does not recite any structure of the apparatus. The informational content of non-functional descriptive material is not entitled to weight in the patentability analysis. See In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“Lowry does not claim merely the information content of a memory. . . . Nor does he seek to patent the content of information resident in a database.”). See also Ex parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1887-90 (BPAI 2008) (precedential); Ex parte Curry, 84 USPQ2d 1272 (BPAI 2005) (informative) (Federal Circuit Appeal No. 2006-1003, aff’d, Rule 36 (June 12, 2006)); Ex parte Mathias, 84 Appeal 2011-010364 Application 10/859,797 4 USPQ2d 1276 (BPAI 2005) (informative), aff’d, 191 Fed. Appx. 959 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Moreover, even if we, arguendo, accord the disputed limitations weight, we nonetheless agree with the Examiner’s finding that Mathur teaches that the white pixels have a greater dynamic range than the red, green, and blue pixels (Ans. 12). In particular, Mathur discloses that “a larger capacitor 131 may be formed at the white pixel locations while maintaining a smaller capacitor 131 at the filtered pixel locations” (col. 7, ll. 7-9). That is, the white pixels have a greater dynamic range than the filtered pixels because they are able to accumulate more charge in the larger capacitor. Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. We will also sustain the Examiner’s rejections of the remaining claims on appeal because Appellants did not set forth any separate and different patentability arguments for them (see App. Br. 10-13). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, and 15 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