11154054 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 2014)

Ex Parte Kerofsky et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 26, 2014

11154054 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 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. 11/154,054 06/15/2005 Louis Joseph Kerofsky SLA1796 (7146.0566) 1584 55648 7590 06/27/2014 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 06/27/2014 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 and SCOTT JAMES DALY _____________ Appeal 2012-001241 Application 11/154,054 Technology Center 2600 ______________ Before STEVEN D. A. McCARTHY, STEPHEN C. SIU, and DAVID M. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judges. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final rejection of claims 1-11 and 13-20.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of these claims. 1 Claim 12 was previously cancelled. Appeal 2012-001241 Application 11/154,054 2 INVENTION The invention is directed to a method and apparatus for adjusting an image for increased brightness. Spec. 1. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below: 1. A method for adjusting an image for increased brightness, said method comprising: a) filtering an image to create a low-pass (LP) image and a high-pass (HP) image; b) applying a tone scale adjustment model exclusively to said LP image to form an adjusted LP image, wherein said tone scale adjustment model increases pixel values in said LP image of said image; c) applying a constant, positive gain exclusively to said HP image to form an adjusted HP image, wherein the magnitude of said gain is greater than 1 and wherein said applying is performed by a computing device comprising a processor and a memory; d) adding said adjusted LP image to said adjusted HP image to form a brightness-enhanced image. REFERENCE Gindele US 2004/0081363 A1 April 29, 2004 REJECTION AT ISSUE Claims 1-11 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Gindele. Ans. 4-36. Appeal 2012-001241 Application 11/154,054 3 ISSUE Did the Examiner err in finding that Gindele discloses applying a constant, positive gain having a magnitude greater than 1 exclusively to a high-pass (HP) image, as required by independent claims 1, 10, and 16? ANALYSIS Independent claim 1 recites “applying a constant, positive gain exclusively to said HP image to form an adjusted HP image, wherein the magnitude of said gain is greater than 1 . . . .” Independent claims 10 and 16 recite similar limitations. Claims 2-9, 11, 13-15, and 17-20 are dependent upon one of claims 1, 10, and 16. The Examiner finds that Gindele discloses the disputed limitation in three alternative ways, discussed below. Ans. 36- 60. We disagree with the Examiner. In the first alternative, the Examiner finds that Gindele discloses applying a “fraction” to a noise residual digital image2 to produce an adjusted noise residual digital image before adding the adjusted noise residual digital image to a tone scale adjusted digital image to produce an output digital image. Ans. 41-42. The Examiner further finds that the disclosed “fraction” can be any fraction, including an improper fraction (i.e., 3/2) that is greater than 1, because Gindele does not explicitly state that the fraction cannot be greater than 1 and because the ordinary meaning of the 2 For purposes of this appeal, the parties agree that Gindele’s noise residual digital image is equivalent to the claimed “HP image.” Ans. 39; App. Br. 9. In addition, we agree with the Examiner that paragraph 74 of Gindele mistakenly refers to a “noise residual digital image 412” when the intent of Gindele is to instead refer to a “noise reduced digital image 412.” Ans. 39- 40. Appeal 2012-001241 Application 11/154,054 4 term “fraction” includes both fractions that are less than 1 as well as fractions that are greater than 1. Ans. 42, 53. We disagree. First, the last sentence of paragraph 74 discloses that it is possible to add “only a fraction of” the noise residual digital image to the tone scale adjusted digital image to produce the output digital image. See Gindele, para. 74. We agree with Appellants that the modifier “only” limits the disclosed “fraction” to a fraction less than 1. Reply Br. 8. Second, the noise residual digital image primarily comprises noise content filtered out of the input digital image. See Gindele, para. 65. As Appellants argue, applying a fraction that is greater than 1 to the noise residual digital image would result in amplification of the noise content and would therefore defeat the stated purpose of filtering out the noise content in the first place. App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 8. For instance, Gindele discloses that as a result of filtering out the noise content, “the final processed digital image contains amplified image signal content and has acquired the contrast enhancement imparted by the tone scale function while the image noise content has not [been] amplified in the process.” Gindele, para. 65 (emphasis added).3 In the second alternative, the Examiner finds that Gindele discloses the disputed limitation because the sum of a first gain exclusively applied to a noise reduced digital image4 by a tone scale function and a second gain exclusively applied to the noise residual digital image by the disclosed 3 Gindele also discloses that prior art systems are deficient precisely because they amplify both the signal content and noise content of an input digital image. See Gindele, para. 65. Gindele goes on to disclose that amplification of the noise content of an input digital image “results in a quality degradation” for the output digital image. Id. 4 For purposes of this appeal, the parties agree that Gindele’s noise reduced digital image is equivalent to the claimed “LP image.” Ans. 55; App. Br. 9. Appeal 2012-001241 Application 11/154,054 5 “fraction” can be greater than 1 even if the disclosed “fraction” must be construed as a fraction between 0 and 1. Ans. 47. We disagree. As Appellants argue, the summed gain cannot logically be a gain applied exclusively to the noise residual digital image (which the Examiner finds to be equivalent to the claimed “HP image”), as required by claims 1, 10, and 16, because a component of the summed gain (i.e., the first gain) is a gain applied exclusively to the noise reduced digital image (which the Examiner finds to be equivalent to the claimed “LP image”). Reply Br. 10- 11. In the third alternative, the Examiner finds that Gindele discloses the disputed limitation because Gindele discloses applying an “Sfac parameter” having a value “ranging from 2.0 to 5.0” to the noise content of the input digital image to produce the noise residual digital image. Ans. 45-46. We disagree. As Appellants argue, the “Sfac parameter” is not applied to the noise residual digital image (which the Examiner finds to be equivalent to the claimed “HP image”) but is instead applied to the input digital image to produce the noise residual digital image. App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 11. As such, the “Sfac parameter” cannot logically be applied exclusively to the noise residual digital image, as required by claims 1, 10, and 16. App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 11-12. For the reasons stated supra, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-11 and 13-20. Appeal 2012-001241 Application 11/154,054 6 CONCLUSION The Examiner erred in finding that Gindele discloses applying a constant, positive gain having a magnitude greater than 1 exclusively to an HP image, as required by independent claims 1, 10, and 16. SUMMARY The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-11 and 13-20 is reversed. REVERSED msc