Ex Parte DumarestDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 23, 201311352893 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 23, 2013) Copy Citation 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. 11/352,893 02/13/2006 Jacques Dumarest 6275-214 6033 24112 7590 04/23/2013 COATS & BENNETT, PLLC 1400 Crescent Green, Suite 300 Cary, NC 27518 EXAMINER GOOD JOHNSON, MOTILEWA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2679 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/23/2013 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 JACQUES DUMAREST ____________________ Appeal 2010-011140 Application 11/352,893 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., ERIC S. FRAHM, and ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-006711 Application 11/333,092 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 17, 18, 21, 22, and 33-42. Claims 1-16 and 29-32 have been canceled. Claims 19, 20, and 23-28 are pending and are not rejected (Br. 2; see Final Rej. Cover Sheet, ¶ 4). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appellant’s Disclosed Invention Appellant discloses an image processing method and device for displaying red, green, and blue component values on a liquid crystal display (LCD) (Spec. ¶¶ [0001]-[0003]). Appellant discloses a method and device for converting an image from a first number of bits per pixel to a second number of bits per pixel by generating additional coding bit values for the red, green, and blue components of each pixel (Abs.; claims 17, 33, and 38). Exemplary Claim An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 17, which is reproduced below with emphases added: 17. An image processing method for conversion, within an electronic device, of an image with a first number of bits per pixel into an image with a second number of bits per pixel greater than the first number of bits per pixel, the signal to be converted and the converted signal respectively comprising a set of pixels each associated with red, green and blue component values forming a frame with the first number of pixels and a frame with the second number of pixels, the method comprising: generating additional bit values, via an image processing device of the electronic device, for coding component values of each pixel starting from component values of adjacent pixels; and Appeal 2010-006711 Application 11/333,092 3 using the additional bit values for generating the converted signal with the image processing device. The Examiner’s Rejection The Examiner rejected claims 17, 18, 21, 22, and 33-42 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Ueno (U.S. Patent No. 7,227,524 B2). Ans. 3-6. Appellant’s Contentions1 Appellant contends (Br. 7-9) that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 17, 18, 21, 22, and 33-42 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Ueno because Ueno fails to disclose “generating additional bit values, via an image processing device of the electronic device, for coding component values of each pixel starting from component values of adjacent pixels,” as recited in independent claim 17, and as similarly recited in remaining independent claims 33 and 38. Appellant contends (Br. 8) that Ueno’s column 8, lines 42-55 and column 13, lines 32-50 describe expanding a 6-bit image signal to an 8-bit image signal by adding the two lowest bits to the 6-bit signal to expand the 6-bit signal to an 8-bit signal. Issue on Appeal Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 17, 18, 21, 22, and 33-42 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Ueno because Ueno fails to disclose: “generating additional bit values, via an image processing device of the electronic device, for coding component values of each pixel starting from component values of adjacent pixels,” as recited in independent claim 1 Appellant does not provide separate patentability arguments for claims 17, 18, 21, 22, and 33-42, and instead provides general arguments regarding all of the claims as a group (Br. 7-9). Appeal 2010-006711 Application 11/333,092 4 17, and as similarly recited in remaining independent claims 33 and 38? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s contentions in the Appeal Brief (Br. 7-9) that the Examiner has erred. We agree with Appellant’s above contentions (Br. 7-9) that (i) Ueno fails to disclose “generating additional bit values, via an image processing device of the electronic device, for coding component values of each pixel starting from component values of adjacent pixels,” as recited in independent claim 17, and as similarly recited in remaining independent claims 33 and 38;2 and (ii) Ueno only discloses expanding a 6-bit signal to a 8-bit signal by generating additional bit values. The Examiner relies upon column 5, lines 11-23 of Ueno to meet the recited limitation of representative claim 17 of generating additional coding bit values (Ans. 6), and relies upon column 8, lines 4-20 and 56-63 (see Ans. 3-4) and columns 1-2 (see Ans. 6) of Ueno as disclosing the recited limitation of claim 17 of “for the components of each pixel starting from the component values of adjacent pixels and generating the converted signal from the additional coding bits.” The portions of Ueno cited by the Examiner merely support Appellant’s argument that Ueno only teaches expanding a 6-bit signal to a 8-bit signal (see Br. 7-9), and the Examiner has not shown how or where Ueno meets the limitation found in claim 17 of 2 Appellant’s originally filed independent claims 1 and 14 recite generating the additional bits used for coding starting with adjacent pixel values. This is also supported by paragraphs [0045] and [0063] of the Specification which describe coding using bits based on neighboring/adjacent pixel values. Appeal 2010-006711 Application 11/333,092 5 “coding component values of each pixel starting from component values of adjacent pixels” (claim 17) (emphases added), and as similarly recited in remaining independent claims 33 and 38. Ueno is silent as to starting coding with adjacent pixel values as a starting point. Appellant correctly points out that Ueno (col. 8, l. 51 and col. 13, ll. 33-51) discloses expanding a 6-bit signal to an 8-bit signal by adding the two lowest bits “00.” In other words, even if Ueno were considered to teach “coding,” Ueno generates the additional bits for coding by always using the least significant bits or the lowest two bits. Thus, Ueno fails to start with adjacent pixel values when coding, because Ueno teaches always using the lowest two bits as the additional bits. The Examiner fails to explain how Ueno anticipates the claims, and more specifically, how Ueno meets the limitation set forth in each of claims 17, 18, 21, 22, and 33-42 of coding component values of each pixel starting from component values of adjacent pixels (see Ans. 6). The Examiner has not explained how or why columns 1, 2, and 8 of Ueno meet the limitation of “coding component values of each pixel starting from component values of adjacent pixels.” Thus, Appellant has shown reversible error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection. Because Ueno does not disclose “coding component values of each pixel starting from component values of adjacent pixels” (claim 17) (emphasis added), we do not sustain the § 102(b) rejection of independent claims 17, 33, and 38 containing this feature, as well as claims 18, 21, 22, 34-37, and 39-42 depending respectively from individual ones of claims 17, 33, and 38. Appeal 2010-006711 Application 11/333,092 6 CONCLUSIONS (1) Appellant has established that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 17, 18, 21, 22, and 33-42 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Ueno because Ueno fails to disclose “coding component values of each pixel starting from component values of adjacent pixels”, as recited in independent claim 17, and as similarly recited in remaining independent claims 33 and 38. (2) On this record, claims 17, 18, 21, 22, and 33-42 have not been shown to be unpatentable. DECISION The Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 17, 18, 21, 22, and 33-42 is reversed. REVERSED tkl Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation