Ex Parte Yamashita et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 30, 2018

13055954 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/055,954 01/26/2011
52349 7590 08/01/2018
WENDEROTH, LIND & PONACK L.L.P.
1030 15th Street, N.W.
Suite 400 East
Washington, DC 20005-1503
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Haruo Yamashita
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.
2011_0114A 9596
EXAMINER
TRUONG, NGUYEN T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/01/2018 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):
eoa@wenderoth.com
kmiller@wenderoth.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HARUO YAMASHITA, Y ASUHIRO KUWAHARA,
and TAKESHI ITO
Appeal2017-004396
Application 13/055,954
Technology Center 2400
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JOYCE CRAIG, and SCOTT E. BAIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-17, 28, and 29, which are all of the claims
pending in this application. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Panasonic Intellectual
Property Management Co., LTD. of Osaka, Japan. App. Br. 2.
2 Claims 18-27 and 30 have been canceled. App. Br. 13-14 (Claims
App'x).
Appeal2017-004396
Application 13/055,954
INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to a color signal converting apparatus,
video displaying apparatus, color signal converting method, video displaying
method and image data. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative and reads as
follows:
1. A color signal converting apparatus which performs
conversion on a first color signal represented in a first color
gamut, the color signal converting apparatus comprising:
a primary color conversion unit configured to convert the
first color signal into a second color signal represented in a
second color gamut which is wider than a predetermined color
gamut defined by predetermined standard primary color points
and which includes the predetermined standard primary color
points;
a gamma conversion unit configured to perform
conversion on the second color signal according to a gamma
characteristic;
a luminance and chrominance conversion unit configured
to convert, into a luminance signal and a chrominance signal, the
second color signal converted by the gamma conversion unit;
a chrominance signal conversion unit configured to
convert, based on a conversion coefficient, the chrominance
signal which is, within a possible value range of the chrominance
signal, outside a value range that can be represented by the
second color gamut, into a chrominance signal in a color gamut
that falls between the predetermined color gamut and the second
color gamut so that it is wider than the predetermined color
gamut and narrower than the second color gamut; and
an output unit configured to output, as an output signal, the
chrominance signal converted by the chrominance signal
conversion unit and the luminance signal converted by the
luminance and chrominance conversion unit.
2
Appeal2017-004396
Application 13/055,954
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-8, 10, and 29 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Tomizawa et al. (US
2009/0322779 Al ("Tomizawa"); published Dec. 31, 2009) and Suzuki (US
2008/0120674 Al; published May, 22, 2008).
Claims 9, 11-17, and 28 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Tomizawa, Suzuki, and
Huh et al. (US 2004/0165769 Al; published Aug. 26, 2004) ("Huh").
ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner found Tomizawa teaches or
suggests all of the recited limitations except converting to "a color gamut
that falls between the predetermined color gamut and the second color gamut
so that it is wider than the predetermined color gamut and narrower than the
second color gamut," for which the Examiner relied on Suzuki. Final Act.
3-5.
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because the cited portions of
Tomizawa and Suzuki do not teach or suggest that the sRGB color gamut is
wider than a predetermined color gamut and narrower than a second color
gamut, as claim 1 requires. App. Br. 6.
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner erred, because the
Examiner has not clearly identified where the cited portions of the prior art
teach or suggest that the sRGB color gamut is wider than the color
reproduction range defined by the EBU standard. The Examiner relied on
paragraph 55 of Tomizawa as teaching or suggesting that the sRGB color
gamut (the recited "first color gamut") is wider than the color reproduction
3
Appeal2017-004396
Application 13/055,954
range defined by the EBU standard (the recited "predetermined color
gamut"). Ans. 10-11. In particular, the Examiner found Tomizawa teaches
that the sRGB color gamut is almost the same as the EBU standard and
"[ w ]hen receiving a video signal in one of these formats, the display device
100 starts to perform a display operation in only the colors that falls within
the color reproduction range defined by the EBU standard." Id. at 10. The
Examiner found those teachings suggest that "the sRGB color gamut is
almost the same as the EBU standard range but a little wider because only
the colors that falls within the EBU standard are displayed and some of the
colors that falls outside are disregarded." Id. at 11.
We agree with Appellants that, while the cited portion of Tomizawa
teaches the sRGB color gamut includes colors falling within a color
reproduction range that is almost the same as the one defined by the EBU
standard, it does not support the Examiner's findings with regard to the
relative widths of the sRGB color gamut and the color reproduction range
defined by the EBU standard, which purportedly meets the recited
"predetermined color gamut." See App. Br. 6.
The Examiner's further reliance on Suzuki's teaching that the xvYCC
color gamut (the recited "second color gamut") is wider than the sRGB color
gamut (id. at 11) is insufficient to remedy the deficiency in Tomizawa.
For these reasons, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding
that the combination of Tomizawa and Suzuki teaches or suggests the
disputed limitations of claim 1.
Accordingly, on the record before us, we reverse the Examiner's
§ 103(a) rejection of independent claim 1 and the Examiner's§ 103(a)
rejection of independent claim 29, which Appellants argue are patentable for
4
Appeal2017-004396
Application 13/055,954
similar reasons. App. Br. 7. We also reverse the Examiner's rejection of
dependent claims 2-17 and 28, which stand with the independent claims
from which they depend.
DECISION
We reverse the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-17, 28,
and 29.
REVERSED
5