Ex Parte Kerofsky

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 24, 2014

11293066 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 24, 2014)

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.
11/293,066 12/02/2005 Louis Joseph Kerofsky SLA1953 (7146.0567) 3718
55648 7590 07/24/2014
CHERNOFF VILHAUER MCCLUNG & STENZEL, LLP
601 SW Second Ave., Suite 1600
PORTLAND, OR 97204
EXAMINER
WANG, JIN CHENG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2618
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/24/2014 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 2012-000648
Application 11/293,066
Technology Center 2600
________________

Before DENISE M. POTHIER, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judges.

CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-16 and 19-23. Claims 17, 18, and 24 are canceled.
App. Br. 2, Claims Appendix. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claims 1-13 and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. Ans. 4-5.
Claims 1-13 and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite. Ans. 5.
Appeal 2012-000648
Application 11/293,066

2
Claims 1-16 and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Gindele (US 7,158,686 B2, issued Jan. 2, 2007) (hereinafter
“Gindele3”) and Fleck (US 2006/0061563 A1, published Mar. 23, 2006).
Ans. 6-41.
Claims 1-16 and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Gindele3 and Chase (US 7,433,096 B2, issued Oct. 7, 2008).
Ans. 41-70.
Claims 1-16 and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Gindele (US 2003/0235342 A1, published Dec. 25, 2003)
(hereinafter “Gindele1”) and Gindele (US 6,594,388 B1, issued July 15,
2003) (hereinafter “Gindele2”). Ans. 70-86.
Claims 1, 14, 16, 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Feng (US 2005/0248593 A1, published Nov. 10, 2005). Ans.
87-93.
We reverse.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention relates to display-mode dependent adjustment
of image code values. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced
below:
1. A method for display-mode-dependent adjustment of image
code values, said method comprising:
detecting a display mode for a display, wherein said display comprises
a display source light and a plurality of light valves modulated to form a
display image based on image code values of an input image and wherein
said display mode relates to a source light illumination level for said display
source light;
Appeal 2012-000648
Application 11/293,066

3
adjusting said source light to said source light illumination level
corresponding to said display mode when said display mode meets a
criterion; and
adjusting code values in an input image to be displayed on said
display using said display mode and said source light illumination level such
that said adjusting code values compensates for said adjusting said source
light to said source light illumination level when said display mode meets
said criterion.

ANALYSIS
THE ENABLEMENT REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1-13 AND 19-23
The Examiner finds claims 1-13 and 19-23 fail to comply with the
enablement requirement. Ans. 4-5. Claim 1 recites “adjusting code values
in an input image to be displayed on said display.” The Examiner explains
“the input image is not to be displayed on said display. The Specification
discloses an output image or the claimed display image is to be displayed on
said display.” Ans. 5, see also Ans. 94-97.
Appellant argues “it is clear from the language of the claims that the
input image, while being modified, is still an input image for the display
despite the modification process before being displayed.” App. Br. 8, see
also App. Br. 3 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 86-88 for describing adjusting code values
in an input image to be displayed on said display); see also Reply Br. 4-5.
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred
in finding that claims 1-13 and 19-23 fail to comply with the enablement
requirement. Appellant’s Specification (¶¶ 86-88) describes embodiments
of adjusting code values. Claim 1 recites “adjusting code values in an input
image to be displayed on said display.” The claim language recites the
purpose of the input image — to be displayed on the display. The claim
language also recites that the code values in the input image are adjusted, for
Appeal 2012-000648
Application 11/293,066

4
which embodiments are described in the Specification. We therefore find
that this disclosure teaches to those skilled in the art how to make and use
the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-13
and 19-23 as failing to comply with the enablement requirement.

THE INDEFINITENESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1-13 AND 19-23
The Examiner finds claims 1-13 and 19-23 are indefinite. Ans. 5.
The Examiner explains “the input image is not to be displayed on said
display. The output image or the claimed display image is to be displayed
on said display, as opposed to the input image.” Ans. 5.
Appellant argues “it is clear from the language of the claims that the
input image, while being modified, is still an input image for the display
despite the modification process before being displayed.” App. Br. 9; see
also Reply Br. 4-5.
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred
in finding that claims 1-13 and 19-23 are indefinite. Claim 1 recites
“adjusting code values in an input image to be displayed on said display.”
The claim language recites the purpose of the input image — to be displayed
on the display. We therefore find that an ordinarily skilled artisan would
have understood what is claimed when the claim is read in light of the
specification.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-13
and 19-23 as indefinite.

Appeal 2012-000648
Application 11/293,066

5
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1-16 AND 19-23 OVER GINDELE3
AND FLECK
The Examiner finds Gindele3 and Fleck teach all limitations of
claim 1. Ans. 6-25. The Examiner relies on Gindele3’s adjustments to pixel
data to account for exposure variability for the recited adjusting code values.
Ans. 12-13 (citing Gindele3, col. 7, ll. 38-67, col. 8, ll. 1-45).
Appellant argues, among other arguments, that
The examiner seems to be making some connection between
exposure variability and the present invention’s source light,
but there is no connection to be made. Gindele discusses
exposure of the original image at the time of image capture.
This exposure is completely irrelevant to the present claims,
which relate to compensation for display source light
illumination changes at the time of display - not at the time of
image capture. The examiner’s rejection goes on for pages
citing abstract image processing techniques applied to images,
but none of the techniques relate to the image source light or
backlight illumination level.
App. Br. 11; see also Reply Br. 5-7.
We agree with Appellant, and are persuaded that the Examiner erred
in finding that Gindele3 teaches the recited adjusting code values.
Gindele3 (col. 7, ll. 38-45) describes:
The scene balance module 320 receives the RLSE digital image
from the RLSE conversion module 310 and performs a
lightness and color balance adjustment. The resulting
processed digital image is called the source digital image 102
since it is the input digital image to the tone scale module 330.
The lightness adjustment to the pixel data accounts for exposure
variability in the original digital image 101.
Gindele3’s lightness adjustment accounts for exposure variability, but
Gindele3 does not teach or suggest adjusting image code values using the
Appeal 2012-000648
Application 11/293,066

6
display mode and the source light illumination level of the display’s display
source light as recited in claim 1.
Additional cited portions of Gindele3 (see Ans. 12-14) also do not
teach or suggest adjusting image code values as recited. Gindle3 (col. 7, ll.
38-67; col. 8, ll. 1-45) describes lightness and color balance adjustment.
Gindele3 (col. 6, ll. 23-29) describes lightness and color balance adjustment,
and a tone scale function, which is an image-dependent modification to the
digital image, not using the source light illumination level, and not
compensating for the adjustment of the source light. Gindele3 (col. 10, ll.
27-45) describes the chain of image processing modules. Thus, the
additional cited portions of Gindele3 also do not teach or suggest adjusting
image code values as recited.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection over Gindele3
and Fleck of claim 1 or of claims 2-13, which depend from claim 1.
We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection over Gindele3 and
Fleck of independent claim 14, which recites (emphasis added) “applying a
first tone scale adjustment model to code values of an input image to
compensate for said adjusting said source light to said first source light
illumination level when said display mode meets a first criterion” and
“applying a second tone scale adjustment model to code values of said input
image to compensate for said adjusting said source light to said second
source light illumination level when said display mode meets said second
criterion” or of claim 15, which depends from claim 14. The language of
claim 14 differs in scope from the language of claim 1; however, the
difference in claim language does not change our decision. The Examiner
relies on the same teachings in Gindle3 (see Ans. 30-37), and the cited
Appeal 2012-000648
Application 11/293,066

7
portions of Gindele3 (see Ans. 30-37) also do not teach or suggest applying
first and second tone scale adjustment models as recited in claim 14.
Independent claims 16, 21, and 23 recite similar limitations to claim 1,
and the Examiner relies upon the same passages in Gindele3 to teach this
limitation. See Ans. 6-41.
For the same reasons as discussed above in connection with claim 1,
we also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection over Gindele3 and Fleck of
independent claim 16, which recites “an image adjuster for adjusting code
values in an input image to be displayed on said display using said current
display mode and said source light illumination level” or of claims 19 and
20, which depend from claim 16.
For the same reasons as discussed above in connection with claim 1,
we also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection over Gindele3 and Fleck of
independent claim 21, which recites “adjusting code values in an input
image to be displayed on said display using said display mode and said
source light illumination level” or of claim 22, which depends from claim
21.
For the same reasons as discussed above in connection with claim 1,
we also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection over Gindele3 and Fleck of
independent claim 23, which recites “an image adjuster for adjusting code
values in an input image to be displayed on said display using said current
display mode and said source light illumination level.”

Appeal 2012-000648
Application 11/293,066

8
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1-16 AND 19-23 OVER GINDELE3
AND CHASE
The Examiner finds Gindele3 and Chase teach all limitations of claim
1. Ans. 41-53. The Examiner relies on Gindele3’s adjustments to pixel data
to account for exposure variability for the recited adjusting code values.
Ans. 48 (citing Gindele3, col. 7, ll. 38-67, col. 8, ll. 1-45).
Appellant argues, among other arguments, that “the examiner cites
Gindele as disclosing display source light information, but Gindele only
describes scene illumination at the time of image capture and makes no
reference whatsoever to a display source light.” App. Br. 12; see also Reply
Br. 5-7.
We agree with Appellant, and are persuaded that the Examiner erred
in finding that Gindele3 teaches the recited adjusting code values for the
same reasons discussed above when addressing the obviousness rejection
over Gindele3 and Fleck.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection over Gindele3
and Chase of claims 1-16 and 19-23, for the same reasons discussed above
when addressing the obviousness rejection over Gindele3 and Fleck.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1-16 AND 19-23 OVER GINDELE1
AND GINDELE2
The Examiner finds Gindele1 and Gindele2 teach all limitations of
claim 1. Ans. 70-75. The Examiner relies on Gindele1’s rendering and tone
scale functions for the recited adjusting code values. Ans. 73-74 (citing
Gindele1 ¶¶ 50-52, 151-152).

Appeal 2012-000648
Application 11/293,066

9
Appellant argues, among other arguments, that
[T]he examiner cites Gindele1 as disclosing display source light
information, but Gindele1 only describes scene illumination at
the time of image capture and makes no reference whatsoever
to a display source light. The scope of the disclosure of
Gindele2 is similar to Gindele1 and no additional information
related to display source lights is disclosed in Gindele2.
App. Br. 13; see also Reply Br. 5-7.
We agree with Appellant, and are persuaded that the Examiner erred
in finding that Gindele1 teaches the recited adjusting code values.
Gindele1 (¶¶ 50-52) describes a rendering function R(x) for
transforming pixel data to a rendered representation. Gindele1 (¶¶ 151-152)
also describes a tone scale function that is applied to a source digital image
to produce a rendered digital image.
Gindele1’s rendering function transforms pixel data and Gindele1’s
tone scale function is applied to a source digital image, but Gindele1 does
not adjust image code values using the display mode and the source light
illumination level of the display’s display source light as recited in claim 1.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection over Gindele1
and Gindele2 of claim 1, or of claims 2-13, which depend from claim 1.
We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection over Gindele1 and
Gindele2 of independent claim 14, which recites “applying a first tone scale
adjustment model to code values of an input image to compensate for said
adjusting said source light to said first source light illumination level when
said display mode meets a first criterion” and “applying a second tone scale
adjustment model to code values of said input image to compensate for said
adjusting said source light to said second source light illumination level
when said display mode meets said second criterion” or of claim 15, which
Appeal 2012-000648
Application 11/293,066

10
depends from claim 14. The language of claim 14 differs from the language
of claim 1; however, the difference in claim language does not change our
decision. The Examiner relies on the same teachings in Gindle1 (see Ans.
79-85), and the cited portions of Gindele1 (see Ans. 79-85) also do not teach
or suggest applying first and second tone scale adjustment models as recited
in claim 14.
For the same reasons as discussed above in connection with claim 1,
we also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection over Gindele1 and Gindele2
of independent claim 16, which recites “an image adjuster for adjusting code
values in an input image to be displayed on said display using said current
display mode and said source light illumination level” or of claims 19 and
20, which depend from claim 16.
For the same reasons as discussed above in connection with claim 1,
we also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection over Gindele1 and Gindele2
of independent claim 21, which recites “adjusting code values in an input
image to be displayed on said display using said display mode and said
source light illumination level” or of claim 22, which depends from claim
21.
For the same reasons as discussed above in connection with claim 1,
we also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection over Gindele1 and Gindele2
of independent claim 23, which recites “an image adjuster for adjusting code
values in an input image to be displayed on said display using said current
display mode and said source light illumination level.”

Appeal 2012-000648
Application 11/293,066

11
THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1, 14, 16, 21, AND 23 BY FENG
The Examiner finds Feng describes all limitations of claim 1. Ans.
87-93. The Examiner relies on Feng’s backlight modulation for describing
the recited adjusting code values. Ans. 89 (citing Feng ¶¶ 34, 42, 64, 93).
Appellant argues “[w]hile Feng does disclose display technology
related to display source lights, Feng differs from the present claims in that
the methods of Feng employ a multi-element backlight with a spatial
frequency. The methods of Feng relate to modulation of the multiple
elements of the backlight and problems related thereto.” App. Br. 14.
Appellant further argues “Feng deals with different methods for dealing with
multi-element backlight problems when the spatial frequency of the
backlight is different than the display pixels.” App. Br. 14; see also Reply
Br. 7-10.
We agree with Appellant, and are persuaded that the Examiner erred
in finding that Feng describes the recited adjusting code values.
Feng (¶ 34) describes modulating backlight elements with sub-
sampled image data. Feng (¶ 42) describes changing backlight element
modulation when pixels in a neighborhood meet a luminance threshold.
Feng (¶ 64) describes temporal changes in pixel amplitude and black point
insertion level. Feng (¶ 93) describes further manipulation of the multi-
element backlight.
Feng’s various backlight modulation techniques do modulate the
backlights based on various factors, but Feng does not adjust image code
values using the display mode and the source light illumination level of the
display’s display source light as recited in claim 1.
Appeal 2012-000648
Application 11/293,066

12
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection by Feng of
claim 1.
We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection by Feng of
independent claim 14, which recites “applying a first tone scale adjustment
model to code values of an input image to compensate for said adjusting said
source light to said first source light illumination level when said display
mode meets a first criterion” and “applying a second tone scale adjustment
model to code values of said input image to compensate for said adjusting
said source light to said second source light illumination level when said
display mode meets said second criterion.” The language of claim 14 differs
from the language of claim 1; however, the difference in claim language
does not change our decision. The Examiner relies on the same teachings in
Feng (see Ans. 87), and the cited portions of Feng (see Ans. 87) also do not
teach or suggest applying first and second tone scale adjustment models as
recited in claim 14.
For the same reasons as discussed above in connection with claim 1,
we also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection by Feng of independent
claim 16, which recites “an image adjuster for adjusting code values in an
input image to be displayed on said display using said current display mode
and said source light illumination level.”
For the same reasons as discussed above in connection with claim 1,
we also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection by Feng of independent
claim 21, which recites “adjusting code values in an input image to be
displayed on said display using said display mode and said source light
illumination level.”
Appeal 2012-000648
Application 11/293,066

13
For the same reasons as discussed above in connection with claim 1,
we also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection by Feng of independent
claim 23, which recites “an image adjuster for adjusting code values in an
input image to be displayed on said display using said current display mode
and said source light illumination level.”

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-16 and 19-23 is reversed.

REVERSED

kis