Ex Parte Alakarhu et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 27, 201714289215 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 14/289,215 05/28/2014 Juha Alakarhu 1004289.821US 6202 10928 7590 03/01/2017 T nrke T nrH T T P EXAMINER IP Docket Department 3 World Financial Center WANG, XI New York, NY 10281-2101 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2661 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/01/2017 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): ptopatentcommunication @ lockelord. com O W alker @ lockelord .com ECJohnson @ lockelord.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JUHA ALAKARHU, MATTI HAMALAINEN, OS SI KALEVO, and TERO VUORI Appeal 2016-006887 Application 14/289,215 Technology Center 2600 Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, ERIC B. CHEN, and NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 1—17, all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appeal 2016-006887 Application 14/289,215 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention relates to receiving information from an image sensor relating to one image frame or sub-images produced from image information according to cropping data. (Abstract.) Claim 1 is exemplary, with disputed limitation in italics: 1. An apparatus, comprising: an image processing circuitry configured to: receive cropping data that defines a plurality of sub-images; define individual lines of pixels for image capture by an image sensor of only lines of pixels needed for the plurality of sub-images; direct an image sensor to provide, relating to one image frame, image information comprising only the defined individual lines of pixels; receive from the image sensor the image information relating to the one image frame; produce the plurality of sub-images from the received image information according to the cropping data; and forward the plurality of sub-images through an output; wherein the image sensor and the an image processing circuitry are parts of a camera unit and the output is a camera unit interface configured to exchange information between the camera unit and a circuitry external to the camera unit; and wherein the image processing circuitry is further configured to send image information relating to the one frame over the camera unit interface only as the plurality of sub-images. Claims 1, 4, 5, 9, 11, 12, 15, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Crossen (US 2012/0140067 Al, published June 7, 2012) and Hijishiri et al. (US 6,906,746 B2, issued June 14, 2005). 2 Appeal 2016-006887 Application 14/289,215 Claims 2, 3, 8, 10, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Crossen, Hijishiri, and Yomeyama (US 6,972,791 Bl, issued Dec. 6, 2005). Claims 6 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Crossen, Hijishiri, and Takamori et al. (US 2009/0263021 Al, published Oct. 22, 2009). Claims 7 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Crossen, Hijishiri, and Yokomachi (US 2010/0295932 Al, published Nov. 25, 2010). ANALYSIS §103 Rejection—Crossen and Hijishiri We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 17—18) that the combination of Crossen and Hijishiri would not have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitation “direct an image sensor to provide, relating to one image frame, image information comprising only the defined individual lines of pixels.” The Examiner found that cropping images for regions of interest, as illustrated in Figure 7 of Crossen, corresponds to the limitation “direct an image sensor to provide, relating to one image frame, image information comprising only the defined individual lines of pixels.” (Ans. 6, 14—15.) In particular, the Examiner found that “[t]he defined region of interest or individual lines of pixels can be created based on the image that the image sensor provided; therefore, the image information comprising defined region of interest or defined lines of pixels is provided through an image sensor.” (Id. at 15.) We do not agree. 3 Appeal 2016-006887 Application 14/289,215 Independent claim 1 recites: (i) “receive cropping data that defines a plurality of sub-images”; (ii) “define individual lines ofpixels for image capture ... of only lines of pixels needed for the plurality of sub-images”; and (iii) “direct an image sensor to provide, relating to one image frame, image information comprising only the defined individual lines of pixels’ '’ (emphases added). Thus, claim 1 defines the limitation “the defined individual lines of pixels” as “only lines of pixels needed for the plurality of sub-images” with such sub-images further defined as cropping data. Such interpretation is consistent with Appellants’ Specification, which discloses the following: The camera processor 330 takes care in particular example embodiments of one or more of the following functions: . . . Aspect ratio control by cropping or stretching taken sub-images . . . Defining individual pixel detectors for image capture for focused reading of only those pixels that are needed for desired first regions. (190 (emphasis added).) The data 344 comprises, for example, cropping data that defines corners of each first image region or sub-image that is desired to be captured. The cropping data is received, according to an example embodiment, through the interface 280 from the host processor 210. (191 (emphasis added).) Accordingly, we interpret the limitation “only the defined individual lines of pixels” as excluding an entire digital image (i.e., uncropped digital image). Crossen relates to a “high-resolution imaging device capable of producing standard or lower resolution images.” (Abstract.) As illustrated in Figure 7 of Crossen, “high-resolution digital camera 20 records an array of high-resolution frames 30,” which are cropped 60 to a lower resolution 4 Appeal 2016-006887 Application 14/289,215 standard 70. (119.) Crossen explains that “[t]his apparatus works by using a hi-resolution imaging device but only transmits standard resolution images and optionally transmits standard resolution images of a region of interest triggered by motion or movement or other types of triggers of interest in that area” and “[t]he apparatus is smart enough to detect the trigger then find a surrounding area and convert that area to standard resolution for transmission.” (| 22.) Although the Examiner cited to Figure 7 of Crossen, in which high- resolution frames 30 are cropped 60, the Examiner has provided insufficient evidence to support a finding that Crossen teaches the limitation “direct an image sensor to provide, relating to one image frame, image information comprising only the defined individual lines of pixels.” In particular, as discussed previously, the limitation “only the defined individual lines of pixels” is interpreted as excluding an entire digital image. In contrast, because Crossen explains that the “apparatus works by using a hi-resolution imaging device” (122), which “is smart enough to detect the [motion] trigger then find a surrounding area and convert that area to standard resolution for transmission” and Figure 7 of Crossen illustrates “high- resolution digital camera 20 [that] records an array of high-resolution frames 30,” which are later cropped (119), such high-resolution frames 30 are entire digital images. Thus, on this record, the Examiner has not demonstrated that Crossen teaches the limitation “direct an image sensor to provide, relating to one image frame, image information comprising only the defined individual lines of pixels,” as recited in claim 1. Moreover, the Examiner’s application of Hijishiri does not cure the above noted deficiencies of Crossen. (Ans. 15.) 5 Appeal 2016-006887 Application 14/289,215 Accordingly, we are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that “Crossen does not direct the image sensor to capture only desired sub images and send them over the camera unit interface” because “in Crossen, frames are captured and cropping 60 operates on the captured frames” (App. Br. 17) and “Crossen’s main purpose requires seeing motion in the entire image frame in order to be able to detect the region of motion anywhere in the frame” (id. at 18). Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 4 and 5 depend from independent claim 1. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 1. Independent claims 9, 15, and 17 recite limitations similar to those discussed with respect to independent claim 1. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 9, 15, and 17, as well as dependent claims 11, and 12, for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1. §103 Rejection—Crossen, Hijishiri, and Yomeyama Claims 2, 3, 8, 10, and 16 depend from independent claims 1, 9, and 15. Yomeyama was cited by the Examiner for teaching the additional features of claims 2, 3, 8, 10, and 16. (Ans. 9-11.) However, the Examiner’s application of Yomeyama does not cure the above noted deficiencies of Crossen and Hijishiri. §103 Rejection—Crossen, Hijishiri, and Takamori Claims 6 and 13 depend from independent claims 1 and 9. Takamori was cited by the Examiner for teaching the additional features of claims 6 6 Appeal 2016-006887 Application 14/289,215 and 13. (Ans. 11—12.) However, the Examiner’s application of Takamori does not cure the above noted deficiencies of Crossen and Hijishiri. §103 Rejection—Crossen, Hijishiri, and Yokomachi Claims 7 and 14 depend from independent claims 1 and 9. Yokomachi was cited by the Examiner for teaching the additional features of claims 7 and 14. (Ans. 12—13.) However, the Examiner’s application of Yokomachi does not cure the above noted deficiencies of Crossen and Hijishiri. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—17 is reversed. REVERSED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation