Ex Parte Minai et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 15, 2016

12760720 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 15, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121760,720 04/15/2010
23389 7590 03/17/2016
SCULLY SCOTT MURPHY & PRESSER, PC
400 GARDEN CITY PLAZA
SUITE 300
GARDEN CITY, NY 11530
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Tetsuo MINAI
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
26095 9621
EXAMINER
LEE, YYOUNG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2485
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/17/2016 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):
Docket@SSMP.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte TETSUO MINAI, KAZUAKI TAMURA, and TAKESHI MORI
Appeal2014-004918
Application 12/760,720
Technology Center 2400
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 1-9. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify Olympus Corporation as the Real Party in Interest.
(Br. 3.)
Appeal2014-004918
Application 12/760,720
THE INVENTION
Appellants' invention is directed to an image generating device for
acquiring a normal image, which is a color image of an object illuminated
with white light, and a spectral image generated using a specific color
component. (Abstract; Spec. 20.)
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. An image generating device comprising:
a first image-information generating unit that generates
first image information based on a plurality of pieces of acquired
color element information;
a color-component detecting unit that detects a
predetermined color component based on each piece of color
element information;
a color-component eliminating unit that eliminates the
predetermined color component detected by the color-
component detecting unit from a predetermined piece of color
element information among the plurality of pieces of color
element information; and
a second image-information generating unit that generates
second color information based on a piece of color element
information obtained by eliminating the predetermined color
component by the color-component eliminating unit and another
piece of color element information, wherein
the plurality of pieces of color element information
comprises red data, green data, and blue data,
the color-component detecting unit detects a yellow color
component,
the color-component eliminating unit generates yellow-
eliminated green data by eliminating the yellow component from
the green data, and
2
Appeal2014-004918
Application 12/760,720
the second image-information generating unit generates
the second image information based on the yellow-eliminated
green data and the blue data.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1--4, 8, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as being anticipated by Asao et al. (US 2009/0121992 Al, pub. May 14,
2009). (Final Act. 2; Ans. 4--5.)
The Examiner rejected claims 5-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Asao and applicants' admitted prior art. (Final Act. 2-3;
Ans. 6.)
ISSUE ON APPEAL
Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following
dispositive issue:2
Whether Asao discloses the independent claim 1 limitations, "the
color-component detecting unit detects a yellow color component [and] the
color-component eliminating unit generates yellow-eliminated green data by
eliminating the yellow component from the green data," and the similar
limitations recited in independent claims 5, 8, and 9. (Br. 9-10.)
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the positions of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed July 5, 2013); the Final Office
Action (mailed Feb. 1, 2012); and the Examiner's Answer (mailed July 15,
2013) for the respective details.
3
Appeal2014-004918
Application 12/760,720
ANALYSIS
For the claim limitations at issue, the Examiner relies on the
disclosure in Asao of a liquid crystal display device using filters to display
colors. (Ans. 4--5.) The Examiner asserts that the claims, under the broadest
reasonable interpretation, read on this disclosure. (Ans. 7 .)
Appellants argue:
Asao discloses a color display apparatus for a multi-color
display using color filters. Asao, however, is silent as to
detecting a yellow color component and eliminating the
detected yellow component from the green data. In particular,
the Examiner argues that the color-component eliminating unit
recited in independent claim 1 corresponds to the filter of Asao.
Asao discloses that a multi-color display can be achieved using
the color filter, but does not disclose or suggest generation of
yellow-eliminated green data by eliminating the detected
yellow component from the green data.
(Br. 9.) We agree with Appellants- the claims are not reasonably
construed to cover the filtered displays disclosed in Asao. Therefore, on the
record before us, we are constrained to find the Examiner errs in rejecting
independent claims 1, 5, 8, and 9.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, we do not sustain the anticipation
rejection of independent claims 1, 8, and 9, or the obviousness rejection of
claim 5. We also do not sustain the anticipation rejection of claims 2--4, or
the obviousness rejection of claims 6 and 7, which claims depend from
claims 1 or 5.
4
Appeal2014-004918
Application 12/760,720
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-9 is reversed.
REVERSED
5