APPLE INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 24, 2020

2019005318 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 24, 2020)

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.
14/742,816 06/18/2015 Alon Yasovsky P26511US1/1020-1135 3660
123590 7590 12/24/2020
KLIGLER & ASSOCIATES PATENT ATTORNEYS LTD.
P.O. BOX 57651
TEL AVIV, 61576
ISRAEL
EXAMINER
CARTER, RICHARD BRUCE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2485
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/24/2020 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):
INFO@DKPAT.CO.IL
alon@dkpat.co.il
daniel@dkpat.co.il
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALON YASOVSKY, RONEN DEITCH, and YOHAI ZMORA
Appeal 2019-005318
Application 14/742,816
Technology Center 2400
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, DAVID J. CUTITTA II, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. See Final Act. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.

1 We refer to the Specification, filed June 18, 2015 (“Spec.”); Final Office
Action, mailed September 6, 2018 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief, filed
February 28, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer, mailed May 21,
2019 (“Ans.”); and Reply Brief, filed July 3, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
2 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Apple Inc. Appeal
Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-005318
Application 14/742,816
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to monitoring optical element performance
using software scene evaluation. Spec., Title. Claim 1, reproduced below
with a disputed limitation emphasized in italics, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A method for projection, comprising:
projecting a pattern of structured light with a given
average power onto a scene;
capturing a sequence of images of the scene while
projecting the pattern;
processing at least one captured image in the sequence in
order to extract a depth map of the scene, the depth map
comprising an array of pixels with respective depth values;
identifying that the depth map indicates a fault in
projection of the pattern; and
responsively to identifying that the depth map indicates the
fault, reducing the average power of the projection of the pattern.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Yee US 8,330,134 B2 Dec. 11, 2012
Russell US 2013/0215235 A1 Aug. 22, 2013
Xiong US 2014/0002445 A1 Jan. 2, 2014

REJECTIONS
Claims 1 and 3–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Xiong and Russell. Final Act. 3–10.
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Xiong, Russell, and Yee. Final Act. 10–11.

Appeal 2019-005318
Application 14/742,816
3
DETERMINATIONS AND CONTENTIONS
The Examiner finds that Xiong’s adaptive depth sensing system
(ADSS) teaches a method for the projection of a pattern of light, as recited
by claim 1, including the steps of projecting a pattern of structured light,
capturing a sequence of images, and processing a captured image to extract a
depth map. Final Act. 3. The Examiner applies Russell’s disclosure of
scanning a surrounding environment using projected light to construct a
three-dimensional image map for teaching the remaining steps of claim 1.
Id. at 4. Thus, the Examiner finds Russell teaches (i) the step of identifying
that the depth map indicates a fault in projection of the pattern, as well as the
disputed limitation of (ii) responsively to identifying that the depth map
indicates the fault, reducing the average power of the projection of the
pattern. Id. Specifically in connection with the disputed limitation, the
Examiner finds that Russell’s disclosure of a “reduced intensity (e.g.,
‘power’) of the uniform [projected] brightness pattern” teaches reducing the
average power of the projection of the pattern as required by the disputed
limitation. Id. According to the Examiner, the reason for modifying
Xiong’s system to include Russell’s fault detection is to “reduc[e] the
average power of the projection of the pattern as well as to solve the
problem in a case of difficulty with background ambient invisible light as
taught by Russell (see Russell, paragraph [0038]), thus enhancing light
control efficiency.” Id. at 4–5.
Appellant contends, inter alia, “Russell does not teach or suggest
reducing the average power of the projection of the pattern.” Appeal Br. 7.
According to Appellant:
Appeal 2019-005318
Application 14/742,816
4
Neither paragraph [0038] nor any other portion of Russell
describes reducing the average power of projection of a pattern
of light, let alone doing so responsively to an identified fault in
the projection as required by claim 1. The phrase “reduced
intensity of the uniform brightness pattern” merely relates to the
effect of distance on the brightness of the reflection, as stated
explicitly in paragraph [0038]:
“Accordingly, objects that are closer to the
invisible light projector will appear brighter
in the image collected by the invisible light
camera, while objects that are more distant
will appear dimmer due to the reduced
intensity of the uniform brightness pattern
with increasing distance.”
Xiong does not remedy in any way these deficiencies in Russell.
Id.
In response to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner finds Xiong
discloses that:
the intensity assignment module 124 can leverage by
changing the dynamic intensity range (e.g.
“reducing/increasing”) of each projected component
pattern to achieve a desired illumination intensity, based
on the average depth of a particular depth region. In
addition, the examiner notes that because the intensity
module is capable of leveraging the dynamic intensity
range, this can functionality can be shown in Xiong
paragraph [0054], where the intensity assignment module
24 assigns a first illumination intensity βt,1, a second
illumination intensity βt,2, and third illumination intensity
βt,M, thus it is inherent that the intensity assignment
module 124 is capable of assigning one of a
maximum/increased illumination intensity at a particular
depth region and is also capable of assigning one of a
“reduced/lower/minimum” illumination intensity (e.g.
“power”) at a different particular depth region in the depth
map. Furthermore, Russell also teaches the well-known
Appeal 2019-005318
Application 14/742,816
5
concept of identifying that the depth map indicates a fault
(see paragraph [0038] and [0041], e.g. Page 14 “corrupting
the measured depth data”) in projection of the pattern (see
paragraph [0038], e.g. “projected uniform brightness
pattern”); and responsively to the identifying that the
depth map indicates the fault (see paragraph [0038] and
[0041], e.g. “corrupting the measured depth data”),
reducing the average power of the projection of the pattern
(see paragraph [0038], e.g. “reduced intensity (e.g.
“power”) of the uniform brightness pattern”).
Therefore, the claimed limitations provide no specific
details that would lead one skilled in the art to believe that
performing “identifying that the depth map indicates a
fault in projection of the pattern; and responsively to
identifying that the depth map indicates the fault, reducing
the average power of the projection of the pattern”
contains an inventive feature.
Ans. 13–14.
Appellant replies, arguing, inter alia,
Even if it were conceded, somehow, that paragraphs
[0045] and [0054] of Xiong describe reducing the average
power of the projection of a pattern, these paragraphs
would still not describe or render obvious performing this
function responsively to identifying that a depth map
indicates a fault in the projection of a pattern, as required
by each of the independent claims. For example,
paragraphs [0045]–[0046] state that the assignment of an
illumination intensity to each depth region is simply based
on the average depth of the depth region.
Reply Br. 6 (emphasis added). Appellant also reiterates arguments
presented in the Appeal Brief contending the Russell reference as applied in
the Final Action also fails to teach the disputed limitation. Id.

Appeal 2019-005318
Application 14/742,816
6
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Board conducts a limited de novo review of the appealed
rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant, and in
light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye,
94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).

ANALYSIS
Appellant’s contentions are persuasive of reversible Examiner error.
The Examiner fails to establish that either Xiong or Russell teach the
disputed limitation of “responsively to identifying that the depth map
indicates the fault, reducing the average power of the projection of the
pattern,” as recited in claim 1. Even assuming the Examiner’s findings
regarding Russell’s disclosure at paragraph 38 are accurate, Russell still fails
to show any relationship between the reduced intensity of the brightness
pattern and the corrupting of the measured depth data. Likewise, Xiong also
fails to teach or suggest reducing the average power in response to
identifying that the depth map indicates a fault in projection of the pattern of
structures light for the reasons set forth by Appellant. See Reply Br. 5–6.
Because we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by Appellant,
we need not reach the merits of Appellant’s other arguments.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 or, for the same reasons, the rejection of independent
claims 6, 9, and 17, which include similar limitations, or the rejections of
claims 2–5, 7, 8, 10–16, and 18–20, which depend from these independent
claims.
Appeal 2019-005318
Application 14/742,816
7
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 3–20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Xiong and Russell.
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Xiong, Russell, and Yee.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–17 103 Xiong, Russell 1, 3–20
2 103 Xiong, Russell,
Yee
2
Overall
Outcome
1–20

REVERSED