Ex Parte Kerofsky

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 16, 2014

11202903 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/202,903 08/12/2005 Louis Joseph Kerofsky SLA1902 (7146.0568) 7954
55648 7590 12/17/2014
CHERNOFF VILHAUER MCCLUNG & STENZEL, LLP
601 SW Second Ave., Suite 1600
PORTLAND, OR 97204
EXAMINER
JOSEPH, DENNIS P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2621
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/17/2014 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 LOUIS JOSEPH KEROFSKY
____________

Appeal 2012-005229
Application 11/202,903
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG, and
LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.

COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-005229
Application 11/202,903
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Examiner rejected claims 21, 22, 25, 26, and 29–37. Claims
1–20, 23, 24, 27, and 28 were canceled. (App. Br. 3). Appellant appeals
from the non-final rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
INVENTION
This invention relates to "independent view adjustment in multiple-
view displays." (Title). Claim 21, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
21. A method for adjusting the brightness of a first view in a
multiple-view display independently of a second view in said
multiple-view display, said method comprising:
a) displaying a first image with a first array of pixels in said
multiple-view display, wherein said first array of pixels is
configured to be seen from a first viewing area;
b) displaying a second image with a second array of pixels in
said multiple-view display, wherein said second array of pixels
is configured to be seen from a second viewing area;
c) adjusting a first code value of said first image that is
displayed with said first array of pixels independently of a
second code value of said second image that is displayed with
said second array of pixels to effect a visually-perceptible
change in said first image as displayed with said first array of
pixels wherein said visually-perceptible change is independent
of any change in said second image displayed with said second
array of pixels; and
d) [d1] wherein said adjusting said first code value of said first
image that is displayed with said first array of pixels comprises
creating a first low-pass image and a first high-pass image from
said first image,
Appeal 2012-005229
Application 11/202,903
3
[d2] applying a tone scale operation to said first low-pass image
thereby creating an adjusted first low-pass image,
[d3] applying a constant positive gain operation to said first
high-pass image thereby creating an adjusted first high-pass
image and
[d4] combining said adjusted first low-pass image with said
adjusted first high-pass image.
(Contested limitation emphasized, steps lettered, paragraph returns added).
PRIOR ART EVIDENCE
Gindele US 2004/0081363 Al Apr. 29, 2004
Suzuki US 2005/0212972 Al Sept. 29, 2005
Schobben US 2005/0248503 Al Nov. 10, 2005

REJECTION
Claims 21, 22, 25, 26, and 29–37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combined teachings and suggestions
of Gindele, Schobben, and Suzuki.

RELATED PRIOR DECISION
Appeal No. 2012-003344 (Application No. 11/154,053), mailed
Aug. 6, 2014 (Examiner Reversed).
ISSUE ON APPEAL
Based on Appellant's arguments, the dispositive issue on appeal is
whether the combination of Gindele and Suzuki would have taught or
suggested [d3] "applying a constant positive gain operation to said first high-
pass image thereby creating an adjusted first high-pass image," as recited in
Appellant's independent claim 21, and with commensurate language in
Appeal 2012-005229
Application 11/202,903
4
independent claims 29 and 33. (App. Br. 5–6; Ans.7–8, 19–22; Reply
Br.4–7).
ANALYSIS
Regarding limitation [d3] "applying a constant positive gain operation
to said first high-pass image," the Examiner finds the combination of
Gindele and Suzuki would have taught or suggested contested limitation
[d3]. (Ans. 20). The Examiner finds Gindele suggests limitation [d3]'s
positive gain operation to said first high-pass image because "Gindele
[paragraph 73] explicitly teaches the information in the noise reduced digital
image 413 . . . is 'generally amplified.'" (Ans. 20 (emphasis added)).
Appellant disputes the Examiner's findings regarding Gindele and
contends Gindele “teaches away” from limitation [d3]. (Reply Br. 4–7;
App. Br. 6). Specifically, Appellant contends Gindele's amplified noise
reduced digital image 413 (low spatial frequency information) corresponds
to the claimed "first low pass image," and not the claimed "first high-pass
image." (Reply Br. 6; Gindele ¶¶ 74–75, ¶ 63 (low spatial frequency
information)).
We are persuaded by Appellant's contentions. We agree with
Appellant that Gindele's amplified noise reduced digital image 413 (or low
spatial frequency information) corresponds to the claimed "first low pass
image." (Reply Br.6; Gindele ¶¶ 65, 74–75, Fig. 6B). Specifically, the
Examiner in Answer page 19 correctly mapped Gindele's low spatial
frequency information (e.g. amplified, noise reduced digital image 413) to
the claimed "first low pass image."1 At Answer 20, the Examiner incorrectly

1 Specifically, the Examiner finds the low-pass image (e.g., noise reduced
Appeal 2012-005229
Application 11/202,903
5
switched the mapping. (Ans. 20). Therefore, we agree with Appellant that
Gindele's amplification of the noise reduced digital image 413 ("first low
pass image") does not teach or suggest [d3]'s "positive gain operation to said
first high-pass image" (emphasis added).
Moreover, we agree with Appellant that Gindele “teaches away” from
claim limitation [d3]: "positive gain operation to said first high-pass image"
(emphasis added) by describing reducing the high-pass signal (noise
residual digital image 412; noise). (Reply Br. 6; reducing the noise).
Specifically, Gindele teaches "add[ing] back only a fraction of the noise
reduced digital image 412" ("first high-pass image") (¶ 74 (emphasis added),
Fig. 6B (addition module 440); see also id. ¶¶ 64–65, 73 (noise residual
digital image 412 is mostly noise); Reply Br. 5–6). We agree with
Appellant's contention that Gindele teaches reducing the image noise content
(noise residual digital image 412, "first-high pass image"). (Reply Br. 7;
Gindele ¶¶ 65, 73; App. Br. 6).
Because we find Gindele “teaches away” from [d3] "positive gain
operation to said first high-pass image," we are additionally persuaded by
Appellant's arguments that the combination of Gindele and Suzuki would
not have taught or suggested claim 1 limitation [d3].
For these reasons, on this record, we are persuaded the Examiner
erred. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of independent claim 21 and of
independent claims 29 and 33, which recite commensurate limitations.
Because we have reversed the rejection of each independent claim on
appeal, we also reverse the rejection of each dependent claim on appeal.

digital image 413) is amplified by the tone scale adjustment (tone scale
adjustment digital image 407). (Ans. 19; Gindele Fig. 6b, ¶¶ 73–74, 64–65).
Appeal 2012-005229
Application 11/202,903
6
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 21, 22, 25, 26, and
29–37 under § 103.
REVERSED

msc