Ex Parte Augusto

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 28, 2016

13917688 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/917,688 06/14/2013 Carlos J.R.P. Augusto
25883 7590 08/01/2016
HOWISON & ARNOTT, L.L.P
P.O. BOX 741715
DALLAS, TX 75374-1715
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.
RPXC-32574 8858
EXAMINER
GEBRIEL, SELAM T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2661
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/01/2016 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):
patents@dalpat.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CARLOS J. R. P. AUGUSTO
Appeal2014--009962
Application 13/917,688 1
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
PENICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 1-15 and 17-21. (Appeal Br. 7.) Claim 16 has been
cancelled. (Id. at 13.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b )(1 ).
We affirm.
1 Appellant identifies Quantum Semiconductor LLC. as the real party in
interest. (Appeal Br. 3.)
Appeal2014--009962
Application 13/917,688
Invention
Appellant's invention concerns imaging devices (sensors or displays)
operable with multiple aspect ratios and a lens which produces an image
circle. The imaging system is created such that multiple aspect ratio
rectangles will be encompassed in the image circle, and the image circle is
generated such that the perimeter of the image circle contacts each vertex of
each of the rectangles. (Spec. i-fi-124, 37--41, 46--49, Claim 1.)
Illustrative claims 1 and 17 are reproduced below, with key
limitations emphasized:
1. A device comprising:
an image sensor capable of providing images from at
least two rectangles defined on the image sensor,
the rectangles each having a first side that is
perpendicular to a second side,
the first side of each rectangle being parallel to the first
side of the other rectangles,
the second side of each rectangie being paraHei to the
second side of the other rectangles,
a ratio of a length of the first side to a length of the
second side being different for each of the rectangles,
each of the rectangles having the first side longer than the
second side; and
a lens configured to generate an image circle on the
image sensor such that a perimeter of the image circle
concurrently contacts each vertex of each one of the rectangles.
1 7. A device comprising:
an image sensor capable of providing images from at
least two rectangles defined on the image sensor, each rectangle
having a length longer than a width and having a length to
2
Appeal2014--009962
Application 13/917,688
width ratio different from other rectangles of the at least two
rectangles, the lengths of the rectangles being parallel; and
a lens configured to generate an image circle on the
image sensor such that a perimeter of the image circle contacts
each vertex of each one of the rectangles.
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1-15 and 17-20 on the grounds of
nonstatutory double patenting. (Final Action 3--4.)
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 6-15, 17, and 19-21 2 as unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Mori (US 2001/0043406 Al;
Nov. 22, 2001). (Final Action 5-14.)
The Examiner rejects claims 2-5 and 18 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Mori in view ofTabata (US 7,136,099 B2; Nov. 14,
2006.) (Final Action 14--19.)
Issues
Appellant's arguments present us with the following issues:
Did the Examiner err in finding that Mori discloses the limitation of
"a lens configured to generate an image circle on the image sensor such that
a perimeter of the image circle concurrently contacts each vertex of each one
of the rectangles," as recited in claim 1?
2 While the Examiner does not list claim 21 in the initial statement of the
§ 102 rejection, this appears to be an error, as the claim is specifically
addressed in the body of the rejection. (Final Action 14.)
3 While the Examiner lists claim 1 7 in the initial statement of the § 103
rejection, this appears to be an error.
3
Appeal2014--009962
Application 13/917,688
Did the Examiner err in finding that iviori discloses the limitation of
"a lens configured to generate an image circle on the image sensor such that
a perimeter of the image circle contacts each vertex of each one of the
rectangles," as recited in claim 17?
ANALYSIS
As an initial matter, we note that Appellant does not argue the double
patenting rejection. (Appeal Br. 9.) Thus, we summarily affirm the double
patenting rejection of claims 1-15 and 17-20. See Manual of Patent
Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1205.02, 9th ed., Rev. 11.2013 (Nov. 2015)
("If a ground of rejection stated by the examiner is not addressed in the
appellant's brief, appellant has waived any challenge to that ground of
rejection and the Board may summarily sustain it").
Claim 1
The Examiner finds that Mori discloses a lens configured to generate
an image circle on the image sensor such that each of the vertices of two
rectangles which may be used to provide images contacts the image circles.
(Final Action 3, 6; Answer 22.) The Examiner cites Figures 5(A) and 5(B)
of Mori as disclosing this limitation. (Id.)
Mori teaches an auxiliary lens which serves as a ratio conversion lens
for an aspect ratio switchable camera to switch an aspect ratio of the imaging
area from 16:9 to 4:3. (Mori, Abstract.) Figure 5(A) of Mori shows an
imaging area S which is a circle with a diameter of 11 in 16:9 mode, when
the auxiliary lens 10 is not attached, and Figure 5(B) shows an imaging area
S' with a diameter of 9 in 4:3 mode, when the auxiliary lens 10 is attached to
the taking lens 30. (Mori i-fi-1 21, 30-31.)
4
Appeal2014--009962
Application 13/917,688
Appellant argues that, "iviori discloses multiple image circles where a
different image circle is associated with each rectangle and each circle is a
different size." (Appeal Br. 7.) Thus, Appellant argues that Mori does not
disclose a single image circle with a perimeter that "concurrently contacts
each vertex of each one of the rectangles." (Id.; Reply Br. 3.)
We agree with Appellant that "a reference showing circles having
different sizes does not disclose a single circle just because the two circles
are defined at different times" and that the Examiner's findings disregard the
claim limitation that the "image circle" concurrently contacts each vertex of
a plurality of rectangles. (Appeal Br. 8.) While the image sensor may not
be providing images from the "at least two rectangles" at the same time
according to the claim, the image circle's contacts with the vertices of the
"at least two rectangles" are explicitly claimed as occurring concurrently.
Therefore, we agree with the Appellant that Mori does not disclose the
disputed limitation of claim 1, or of claims 6-15 argued on the same
grounds, and that the combination of Mori and Tabata does not teach the
subject matter of claims 2-5, and we reverse the rejections of these claims.
Claim 17
The Examiner finds that Mori discloses the limitations of claim 1 7.
(Final Act. 11-13.) Appellant argues claim 1 and claim 17 together and
asserts that claim 17 includes the concurrency limitation of claim 1. (Appeal
Br. 7.) Unlike claim 1, claim 17 does not require that the perimeter of the
image circle contacts each vertex of each one of the rectangles concurrently.
Because the Appellant has not presented an argument regarding the claim
limitation of claim 17 which does not require that the contact of the vertices
5
Appeal2014--009962
Application 13/917,688
of the at least two rectangles with the image circle be concurrent, we decline
to find that the Examiner has erred.
Therefore, we affirm the rejection of claim 17, and of claims 18-21,
argued on substantially the same grounds.
DECISION
The Examiner's nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claims 1-
15 and 17-20 is summarily affirmed.
The Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 17 and 19-21
is affirmed. The Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 18 is
affirmed.
The Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 1 and 6-15 is
reversed. The Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 2-5 is
reversed.
Since at least one rejection encompassing all claims on appeal is
affirmed, the decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv), no time period for taking any
subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended.
AFFIRMED
6