Ex Parte Kusaka et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 20, 2012

10963084 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 20, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte YASUSHI KUSAKA, TOMOKAZU KAKUMOTO, SO YANO,
KATSUHIKO ASAI, and SATOSHI NAKAMURA
____________________

Appeal 2010-001149
Application 10/963,084
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, THU A. DANG, and
GREGORY J. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-001149
Application 10/963,084

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-12
and 21-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2007). Claims 13-20 have been
indicated as containing allowable subject matter. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2007).
We reverse.

A. INVENTION
According to Appellants, the invention relates to an image sensing
apparatus having solid state image-sensing device that can convert incident
light into an electric signal selectively, either linearly or logarithmically, and
particularly to an image-sensing apparatus having a single image-sensing
device whose operation can be switched between linear conversion and
logarithmic conversion (Spec. 1, ll. 10-14).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary and is reproduced below:
1. An image-sensing apparatus comprising:

a solid-state image-sensing device composed of a
plurality of pixels individually including photosensitive
portions that generate electric signals in accordance with the
amount of light incident thereon, the solid-state image-sensing
device operating selectively either in a first state in which the
individual pixels output signals are obtained by linearly
converting the electric signals generated by the photosensitive
portions thereof for a given amount of incident light, or in a
second state in which the individual pixels output signals
Appeal 2010-001149
Application 10/963,084

3
are obtained by natural-logarithmically converting the electric
signals generated by the photosensitive portions thereof for the
given amount of incident light; and

a generator for generating a switching signal for
switching the solid-state image-sensing device between the first
and second states.

C. REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Shinotsuka US 6,191,408 B1 Feb. 20, 2001

Claims 1-3, 5-7, 11, 12, and 21-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(e) over Shinotsuka.
Claims 4 and 8-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Shinotsuka.

II. ISSUE
Has the Examiner erred in finding that Shinotsuka teaches a “solid-
state image-sensing device” operating “selectively” either in “a first state in
which the individual pixels output signals are obtained by linearly
converting the electric signal generated by the photosensitive portions
thereof for a given amount of incident light” or in “a second state in which
the individual pixels output signals are obtained by natural-logarithmically
converting the electrical signals generated by the photosensitive portions
thereof for the given amount of incident light” and a “generator” for
“generating a switching signal for switching the solid-state image-sensing
Appeal 2010-001149
Application 10/963,084

4
device between the first and second states” (claim 1, emphasis added)? In
particular, the issue turns on whether Shinotsuka’s photosensor signal
processing apparatus operates selectively between the two states for the
same given amount of incident light.

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Shinotsuka
1. Shinotsuka discloses a photosensor signal processing apparatus which
can correct variations in characteristics between pixels of an image
sensor having an inflection point at which the sensor output changes
from a linear function to a logarithmic function of incident
illumination (col. 2, ll. 11-15).
2. Each of the photosensors has a linear function region in which sensor
output varies linearly with incident illumination, and a logarithmic
function region in which the sensor output varies logarithmically with
incident illumination (col. 2, ll. 21-25; Fig. 3).

IV. ANALYSIS
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 11, 12, and 21-27
Appellants contend that, “[i]n Shinotsuka, for each given amount of
incident light, the sensors are capable of only one conversion type (linear or
logarithmic)” and thus “[t]here is no switching between modes involved that
occurs” (App. Br. 6). That is, Appellants assert that “[f]or a given amount of
light you get one and only one conversion characteristic” (id.).
Appeal 2010-001149
Application 10/963,084

5
After reviewing the record on appeal, we agree with Appellants. That
is, we cannot find any suggestion of a device that “selectively” operates
either in a first state or in a second state for the same “amount of incident
light,” as required by claim 1, in the sections of Shinotsuka referenced by the
Examiner.
In particular, the sections in Shinotsuka referenced by the Examiner
disclose a plurality of photosensors, each of the photosensors having a linear
function region and a logarithmic function (FF 2), wherein, at an inflection
point, the sensor output changes from a linear function to a logarithmic
function of incident illumination (FF 1). Though the Examiner finds that, in
Shinotsuka, “if the incident light falls before the inflection point then the
solid-state sensing device operates in a linear mode and if the incident light
is after the inflection point then the solid-state sensing device operates in a
logarithmic mode” (Ans. 11), there is no teaching in the sections of
Shinotsuka that discloses that the device operates “selectively” between the
linear mode and the logarithmic mode for “the given amount of incident
light” as required by claim 1. That is, there is no teaching in the cited
section of Shinotsuka that discloses that Shinotsuka’s photosensor signal
processing apparatus operates selectively between the two modes for the
same incident illumination, but rather, the apparatus only operates in either
the linear mode or a logarithmic mode for a particular incident illumination,
depending on whether the incident illumination is higher or lower than the
reference inflection point (FF 1-2). We agree with Appellants’ assertion that
“[f]or a given amount of light you get one and only one conversion
characteristic” (App. Br. 6).
Appeal 2010-001149
Application 10/963,084

6
As such, we find that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 and
claims 2, 3, 5-7, 11, 12, and 21-25 depending therefrom over Shinotsuka.
Independent claim 27 recites similar limitations and, thus, stands with claim
1 for similar reasons.
As for independent claim 26, Appellants contend that “Shinotsuka
merely compares the output of each individual pixel of sensor 1 to determine
if correction is necessary” (App. Br. 12) and, thus, “does not show or
suggest ‘evaluation portion for evaluating brightness distribution of a subject
to be shot” (App. Br. 13). We agree with Appellants. That is, we cannot
find any suggestion of evaluating “brightness distribution” let alone
“brightness distribution of a subject to be shot,” as required by claim 26, in
the sections of Shinotsuka referenced by the Examiner.
As such, we find that the Examiner also erred in rejecting claim 26
over Shinotsuka.
Claims 4 and 8-10
As noted supra, we reversed the rejection of claim 1 from which
claims 4 and 8-10 depend. The Examiner merely finds that “the claims
remain rejected due to Shinotsuka meeting the claimed limitations of claim 1
as argued above” (Ans. 14). Accordingly, we also reverse the rejection of
dependent claims 4 and 8-10 over Shinotsuka.

V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 5-7, 11, 12, and
21-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and of claims 4 and 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a).

Appeal 2010-001149
Application 10/963,084

7
REVERSED

peb