Ex Parte Matsui

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 15, 2018

14476405 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 15, 2018)

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.
14/476,405 09/03/2014 Kazuhisa Matsui S1459.71757US00 1041
23628 7590 02/20/2018
WOLF GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C.
600 ATLANTIC AVENUE
BOSTON, MA 02210-2206
EXAMINER
CASCHERA, ANTONIO A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2612
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/20/2018 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
Patents_eOfficeAction@WolfGreenfield.com
W GS_eOffice Action @ W olfGreenfield .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KAZUHISA MATSUI
Appeal 2017-007163
Application 14/476,4051
Technology Center 2600
Before MARC S. HOFF, MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—7 and 9—16, which constitute all claims pending
in the application. Claim 8 has been canceled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Sony Corporation. App.
Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-007163
Application 14/476,405
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Claimed Invention
The claimed invention relates to image processing and, specifically, to
color temperature correction in a display. Spec. 1—2. Claims 1 and 9 are
independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and the subject matter
of the appeal, and reads as follows:
1. An image signal processing circuit comprising:
a storage unit that stores a number of set values, which
determine correction values for performing correction of color
temperature of an input digital image signal, that is less than a
number of gradations; and
a computation unit that calculates correction values for
performing the correction of color temperature on the basis of the
set values for gradations for which a set value is stored in the
storage unit, and on the basis of post-correction gradation values
of gradations for which a set value is stored for gradations for
which a set value is not stored in the storage unit.
App. Br. 12 (Claims App.).
The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1—5, 7, 9, and 14—16 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being anticipated by Chang et al. (US 8,497,943 B2;
issued July 30, 2013) (“Chang”). Final Act. 3—8.2
2 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 15 and 16 under pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter the applicant
regards as the invention. Final Act. 2; Ans. 2.
2
Appeal 2017-007163
Application 14/476,405
Claims 6 and 10-13 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Chang. Final Act. 8—9.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
arguments presented in this appeal. Arguments which Appellant could have
made but did not make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41,37(c)(l)(iv). On the record before us, we are unpersuaded the
Examiner has erred. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth
in the rejections from which the appeal is taken and in the Examiner’s
Answer, and provide the following for highlighting and emphasis.
Anticipation of Claims 1 and 9
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding Chang discloses
calculating correction values for performing “the correction of color
temperature,” as recited in claim l.3 App. Br. 5—8 (emphasis added).
Specifically, Appellant contends Chang’s disclosure of “gamma correction”
is not “color temperature” correction, and that “a person of ordinary skill in
the art would have understood that gamma correction and color temperature
correction are not the same.” Id. at 7. Appellant further argues Chang
“never even mentions color temperature” nor its synonym, “hue.” Id. at 6;
Spec. 1. Appellant’s arguments, however, do not persuade us the Examiner
erred.
3 Appellant argues independent claims 1 and 9 as a group, App. Br. 5—8, and
we choose claim 1 as representative of the group. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
3
Appeal 2017-007163
Application 14/476,405
As the Examiner finds, Chang discloses a circuit for “gamma
correction of red color channels[,] gamma correction of green color channels
[and] gamma correction of blue color channels.” Chang col. 1,11. 16—20
(emphasis added); see also Chang col. 2,11. 8—11 (“gamma correction for
each of the color channels”) (emphasis added). Because Chang describes
“gamma correction” as a process that corrects each (RGB) color channel, the
Examiner finds one of ordinary skill in the art would understand Chang’s
gamma correction as including color temperature (hue) correction,
notwithstanding the absence of the word “temperature” in Chang. Resp. 3;
see also In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (observing that
anticipation “is not an ipsissimis verbis test”). We agree. Moreover,
Appellant’s Specification (like Chang) equates “gamma correction” with the
correction of color temperature, and thus further supports the Examiner’s
finding that Chang’s “gamma correction” includes color temperature
correction. Resp. 3; Spec. 12 (“gamma adjustment unit 66 is a color
temperature correction unit that performs the correction of color
temperature by performing level adjustment for each color of the RGB
digital image signal. . . .”) (emphasis added).
Appellant argues the Specification’s use of the phrase “gamma
adjustment” is a “mere label” and is only “one example ... of a unit that
performs correction of color temperature.” App. Br. 8; Reply 4. Appellant
argues the Examiner erred in reading this “example” into the claims. App.
Br. 8. Appellant’s argument, however, necessarily suggests the “example”
of gamma correction is within the (broader) category of color temperature
correction. Accordingly, the broadest reasonable interpretation of
“correction of color temperature,” as recited in claim 1, includes “gamma
4
Appeal 2017-007163
Application 14/476,405
correction.” See In re Am. Acad. ofSci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364
(Fed. Cir. 2004) (finding we must give claim terms their “their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification”). Appellant does
not persuade us, therefore, that the Examiner erred in finding Chang
discloses “correction of color temperature” (e.g., gamma correction), as
recited in claim 1.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1 and 9 as anticipated by Chang.
Anticipation of Claim 7
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding Chang discloses
correction of color temperature “by adding a calculated correction value to a
signal value of a digital image signal,” as recited in dependent claim 7. App.
Br. 8; Reply Br. 6. Appellant’s argument, however, does not persuade us of
error.
As the Examiner finds, Chang discloses an interpolation process,
including an equation adding a stored value to an input (video image) signal,
in order to produce a new “output data value” (video image signal). Resp. 6;
Chang col. 5,11. 46—51. The stored value is, therefore, a “correction” value
added to the input image signal. Resp. 6. Appellant argues that the
foregoing equation “merely represents ‘the output data value after
interpolation process,”’ not the disputed claim limitation. App. Br. 8.
Appellant does not explain, however, why Chang’s interpolation process is
not a correction as recited in the claim. Id.; see In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349,
1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (interpreting the Board’s rules to “require more
substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim
elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not
5
Appeal 2017-007163
Application 14/476,405
found in the prior art”). To the extent Appellant intends to imply a “color
temperature” correction value is absent from Chang, this argument is
unpersuasive for the reasons discussed above in the context of claim 1, from
which claim 7 depends.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim
7 as anticipated by Chang.
Anticipation of Claim 14
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding Chang discloses “set
values for determining the correction values are set specifically for the
display apparatus,” as recited in dependent claim 14. App. Br. 9 (emphasis
added); Reply Br. 6—7. Appellant’s argument, however, does not persuade
us of error.
As the Examiner finds, Chang discloses a “video signal
transformation circuit,” i.e., a circuit that corrects a signal specifically to
display the converted signal on a display apparatus. Resp. 6; Chang col. 3,
11. 10-16. Appellant argues Chang’s transformation circuit does not
differentiate between different displays, because the transformation is the
“same for any display apparatus.” App. Br. 9. The differentiation feature
argued by Appellant, however, is not recited in claim 14. See In re Self 671
F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (“Many of appellant’s arguments fail from
the outset because . . . they are not based on limitations appearing in the
claims.”); Resp. 6—7. Claim 14, rather, recites values set specifically for
“the display apparatus” (i.e., the display apparatus of claim 9). App. Br. 15;
see In re Am. Acad. ofSci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d at 1364. Chang, likewise,
discloses a transformation with values set specifically for “the display
apparatus [i.e., Chang’s display apparatus].” Resp. 7.
6
Appeal 2017-007163
Application 14/476,405
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim
14 as anticipated by Chang.
Anticipation of Claims 15 and 16
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding Chang discloses
“correction values for performing the correction of color temperature for
gradations of a first color for which a set value is not stored in the storage
unit based on post-correction gradation values of gradations of a second
color for which a set value is stored,” as recited in dependent claims 15 and
16. App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 7. Specifically, Appellant argues Chang discloses
“nothing about the correction of color temperature” for gradations of “a first
color” based on post-correction gradation values of “a second color.” App.
Br. 9 (emphasis in original). Appellant’s arguments, however, do not
persuade us of error for reasons similar to those discussed in the context of
claims 1 and 14.
As the Examiner finds, Chang discloses a circuit and techniques for
“the correction of color temperature.” See supra at 5—A. The Examiner
further finds Chang discloses the correction is accomplished by
interpolation, such that a color correction value not found in a lookup table
is computed “by alternate values,” i.e., the correction values for second
colors that are stored in the table. Resp. 7; Chang Fig. 4, col. 5,11. 18—63.
Appellant has not identified the alleged error in the Examiner’s findings, but
instead merely quotes the disputed claim language and asserts it is absent
from Chang. App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 7. Accordingly, we are unpersuaded of
error. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
dependent claims 15 and 16 as anticipated by Chang.
7
Appeal 2017-007163
Application 14/476,405
Obviousness of Claims 10 and 11
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding it would be “an
obvious design choice” for one of ordinary skill in the art to use “organic
electroluminescence elements” for light-emitting units, as recited in claim
10, and to use such elements that “emit white light and color filters” as
recited in claim 11. App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 8. Appellant contends the
Examiner’s findings are “conclusory” and not a “convincing line of
reasoning as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have found the
claimed feature[s] to be obvious.” App. Br. 10. We disagree.
In the Final Action (and the Answer), the Examiner provides a
detailed explanation setting forth why the claimed features would be obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art, in light of the color correction teachings of
Chang. Final Act. 8—9; Ans. 8—9. The Examiner finds, for example, it is
well known in the art that the process of performing color temperature
correction is “applicable to a variety of different display devices,” and a
person of ordinary skill would understand “the driving techniques of Chang”
may be implemented with various different displays, including a “display
configure [d] with organic electroluminescence elements that emit white light
and have color filters.” Resp. 8. The Examiner further finds Appellant’s
Specification confirms display type is not critical to the invention because
“various types of displays are possible for implementation.” Resp. 9; Spec.
8, 10 (stating “[ejxamples of flat surface type display apparatuses include
organic EL display apparatuses” among others, and it is “possible to adopt”
various configurations including one that emits “white light and color
filters”).
8
Appeal 2017-007163
Application 14/476,405
Appellant does not rebut the Examiner’s findings, but simply repeats
the argument that the Examiner “has not provided any reasoning” as to the
obviousness rejection. App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 8. For the foregoing reasons,
this argument does not persuade us of error. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d at
1357; In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“attorney
argument [is] not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a
prima facie case of obviousness”).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims
10 and 11 as unpatentable over Chang.
Rejections of Remaining Claims
Appellant does not argue remaining dependent claims 2—6 and 12—13
separately from independent claims 1 and 9. Accordingly, for the reasons
set forth above, we sustain the rejection of claims 2—5 as anticipated by
Chang and the rejection of claims 6, 12, and 13 as unpatentable over Chang.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—7 and 9—16.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
9