Ex Parte Aarrestad et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 21, 2018

14092002 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 21, 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.
14/092,002 11/27/2013 Glenn AARRESTAD 0370.2919C/984159-US.01 9085
99499 7590 02/23/2018
Edell, Shapiro, & Finnan, LLC
9801 Washingtonian Blvd.
Suite 750
Gaithersburg, MD 20878
EXAMINER
PRABHAKHER, PRITHAM DAVID
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2662
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/23/2018 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):
epatent@usiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GLENN AARESTAD, VIGLEIK NORHEIM,
FRODE TJONTVEIT, and KRISTIAN TANGELAND
Appeal 2017-008197
Application 14/092,002
Technology Center 2600
Before DENISE M. POTHIER, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final
Rejection of claims 1-6 and 9-22, which are all of the claims pending in this
application. Claims 7 and 8 are canceled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Cisco Technology, Inc. as the real party in interest.
Br. 1.
Appeal 2017-008197
Application 14/092,002
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants generally describe the disclosed and claimed invention as
follows:
An image-capturing device includes a receiver that
receives distance and angular direction information that
specifies an audio source position from a microphone array.
The device also includes a controller that determines whether to
change an initial focal plane within a field of view based on the
audio source position. The device includes a focus adjuster that
adjusts an optical focus setting to change from the initial focal
plane to a subsequent focal plane within the field of view to
focus on at least one object-of-interest located at the audio
source position, based on a determination by the controller.
Abstract.2
Claim 1 is representative and reproduced below (with the disputed
limitation emphasized)'.
1. An image-capturing device comprising:
a receiver that receives distance and angular direction
information that specifies an audio source position from a
microphone array;
a controller, including processing circuitry, that
determines whether to change an initial focal plane within a
field of view of an image frame based on the audio source
position, wherein the field of view is based on a current pan-
tilt-zoom settings of the image-capturing device; and
a focus adjuster, including focus adjusting circuitry, that
adjusts an optical focus setting to change from the initial focal
2 Our Decision refers to the Final Office Action mailed May 11, 2016
(“Final Act.”), Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed Oct. 7, 2016 (“Br.”), the
Examiner’s Answer mailed Jan. 18, 2017 (“Ans.”), and the original
Specification filed Nov. 27, 2013 (“Spec.”).
2
Appeal 2017-008197
Application 14/092,002
plane to a subsequent focal plane within the field of view to
focus on at least one object-ofiinterest located at the audio
source position, based on a determination made by the
controller.
Br. 9 (Claims App’x).
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9-15, and 17-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Feng (US 2011/0285807 Al; published
Nov. 24, 2011) and Buckler (US 2008/0218582 Al; published Sept. 11,
2008).
Claims 4 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Feng, Buckler, and Michrowski et al. (US 2012/0007942
Al; published Jan. 12, 2012).
ANALYSIS
The dispositive issue raised by Appellants is whether the combination
of Feng and Buckler teaches or suggests a focus adjuster “that adjusts an
optical focus setting to change from the initial focal plane to a subsequent
focal plane within the field of view,” as recited in claim 1, and as similarly
recited in claims 10 and 20.
In the Final Office Action, the Examiner finds that, although Feng
teaches using pan, tilt, zoom cameras, Feng “does not explicitly teach that
the focus setting and thus the focus is an optical focus.” Final Act. 7. The
Examiner also finds, however, that “Buckler discloses adjusting focus based
on an optical setting.” Id. In particular, the Examiner finds “Buckler
teaches using optical zoom (optical focus setting) to focus in on a speaker
during a video conference.” Id. at 8 (citing Buckler^ 5, 17; claims 1-2).
3
Appeal 2017-008197
Application 14/092,002
Appellants note the Examiner recognizes “that Feng does not
explicitly teach adjusting a focus setting as claimed,” and argue “Buckler,
however, does not teach adjusting a focus setting as recited in claim 1.”
Br. 5. In particular, Appellants argue the Examiner “misconstrues optical
and digital zoom as synonymous with optical focus.” Id. According to
Appellants, “zoom is not focus” and a person of ordinary skill in the art
“would understand that zoom adjusts angle of view (e.g., magnification),
and that focus adjusts focal plane (e.g., focus distance).” Id. Citing
paragraphs 121 and 116, and Figures 14A-14D, Appellants argue Buckler
evidences that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would understand that
optical zoom adjusts the view angle of a camera.” Id. at 5. Appellants
further argue Buckler teaches digital zooming in which an image is “cropped
and enlarged to achieve a zoom effect.” Id. (citing Buckler]} 101) (emphasis
omitted). Thus, Appellants argue “Buckler only teaches that images are
optically or digitally zoomed based on an active speaker,” which “does not
teach or suggest adjusting optical focus as recited in claim 1.” Id. at 6.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner
erred. In responding to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner finds Buckler’s
teaching of optical zooming teaches or suggests adjusting an optical focus
setting within the field of view as recited in the disputed limitation of claim
1. Ans. 9-10 (citing Buckler 5, 117, 121; claims 1-2). Specifically, the
Examiner finds as follows:
Buckler discloses adjusting focus based on an optical setting.
Buckler teaches using optical zoom (optical focus setting) to
focus in on a speaker during a video conference, Paragraphs 0005
and 0117; Claims 1-2 of Buckler. In optical zoom, a set of
moving lenses allows for a range in optical magnification where
light enters an optical zoom lens module and is focused onto the
4
Appeal 2017-008197
Application 14/092,002
imaging plane as is well-known in the art. Therefore, by teaching
optical zoom, Buckler teaches of adjusting an optical focus
setting as required by the claim.
Id. Appellants did not file a reply brief to address these findings.
We agree with Appellants’ argument that Buckler’s teaching of
“digital zooming” does not teach or suggest adjusting an optical focus
setting. See Br. 5-6. We also agree with Appellants’ argument the
Specification discloses “the focal plane corresponds to an adjusted optical
focus distance, not the view angle adjusted by pan-tilt-zoom settings.” Id. at
6 (citing Spec. ^ 32, 33, 37). We are not, however, persuaded by
Appellants’ argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
understand Buckler’s teaching of “optical zooming” as only adjusting the
angle of view of a camera.
In that regard, Appellants’ reliance on paragraphs 116 and 121 of
Buckler is not persuasive. As explained in paragraph 116, Figures 14A to
14D show images taken of people in a room from the widest view angle
available (Fig. 14A), to a view of one person (Fig. 4B), a view of two people
(Fig. 4C), and a view of three people taken to best capture the view of the
speaker (Fig. 4D). Paragraph 117 of Buckler teaches the images can be
improved by using cameras with higher pixel resolution or “[alternatively
optical zoom can be used to improve image quality.” This is consistent with
the Examiner’s finding above that “by teaching optical zoom, Buckler
teaches [] adjusting an optical focus setting as required by the claim.” Ans.
10. Regarding paragraph 121 of Buckler, we find it specifically
distinguishes view angle and optical zooming—“[t]he camera viewing angle
can be adjusted mechanically and optical zooming can be used.” Thus,
5
Appeal 2017-008197
Application 14/092,002
contrary to Appellants’ argument, we agree with the Examiner that Buckler’s
teaching of “optical zooming” teaches or suggests adjusting an optical focus
setting as required by claim 1, rather than adjusting an angle of view.
We find the preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s
findings that Feng in view of Buckler teaches or suggests a focus adjuster
that “adjusts an optical focus setting to change from the initial focal plane to
a subsequent focal plane within the field of view to focus on at least one
object-of-interest located at the audio source position,” as recited in 1, and as
similarly recited in claims 10 and 20.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 1, 10, and 20, as well as the Examiner’s rejections of dependent
claims 2-6, 11-19, 21, and 22, which are not separately argued.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-6 and 9-22
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
6