Ex Parte Côté et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 16, 2016

12873978 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/873,978 09/01/2010
73576 7590
APPLE INC - Fletcher
c/o Fletcher Yoder, PC
P.O. Box 692289
Houston, TX 77269-2289
02/18/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Guy Cote
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.
P8805US1 I APPL:Ol79 6316
EXAMINER
CUTLER, ALBERT H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2661
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/18/2016 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):
docket@fyiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GUY COTE and JEFFREY E. FREDERIKSEN
Appeal2014-003010
Application 12/873,978
Technology Center 2600
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JEFFREY S. SMITH and
AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-003010
Application 12/873,978
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1---6 and 10-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
reverse.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows (emphasis added):
1. An image signal processing system comprising:
a front-end pixel processing unit configured to receive a frame
of raw image data comprising pixels acquired using an imaging device
having a digital image sensor, wherein the front-end pixel processing
unit comprises a statistics collection engine having auto-focus
statistics logic configured to process the raw image data to collect
coarse auto-focus statistics and fine auto-focus statistics, the coarse
auto-focus statistics based at least in part on down-scaled image data
relating to the raw image data, and the fine auto-focus statistics based
at least in part on the raw image data; and
control logic configured to determine an optimal focal position
of a lens of the imaging device using coarse auto-focus scores based
upon the coarse auto-focus statistics and fine auto-focus scores based
upon the coarse and fine auto-focus statistics and to adjust the focal
position of the lens between a minimum position and a maximum
position defining a total focal length to reach the optimal focal
position based at least in part upon the coarse auto-focus scores and
the fine auto-focus scores.
Examiner's Rejections
The Examiner rejected claim 1, under 3 5 U.S. C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Hori (US 2009/0207299 Al; Aug. 20, 2009).
2
Appeal2014-003010
Application 12/873,978
The Examiner rejected dependent claims 1-5, 20-22, 24, and 25 as
being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Chen
et al (US 7,929,044 B2; Apr. 19, 2011) and Koreki (US 2004/0263674 Al;
Dec. 30, 2004). 1
The Examiner rejected dependent claims 6 and 23 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over various combinations of Chen,
Koreki, and other prior art references. 2
The Examiner rejected dependent claims 10-15 as being unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over various combinations of Hori, Ning (US
200410165090 Al Aug. 26, 2004), and other prior art references. 3
The Examiner rejected dependent claims 16-19 as being unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over various combinations of Hori, Chen, and
other prior art references.
1 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 2-5, 20-22, 24, and 25.
Therefore, this rejection of these claims is not further addressed herein.
2 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 6 and 23. Rather, the
rejections of these claims are argued by reference to the rejections of claims
from which they depend. Therefore, the rejections of these claims tum on
our decision as to the underlying § 103 rejection, and are not further
addressed herein.
3 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 10-19. Rather, the
rejections of these claims are argued by repetition of the argument directed
to the § 102 rejection of claim 1. Therefore, the rejections of these claims
tum on our decision as to the§ 102 rejection, and are not further addressed
herein.
3
Appeal2014-003010
Application 12/873,978
Appellants ; Contention
1. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because:
Hori does not disclose "coarse auto-focus statistics
relating to scaled raw image data," as recited by claim 1. In
sharp contrast, Hori discloses, at best, using a focus area (FA2)
relating to a sub-set of the frame APL Hori, paragraph 37 and
FIG. 2. One of ordinary skill in the art would not interpret FA2
as "downscaled image data." Indeed, scaling has a clear plain
and ordinary meaning in the art ....
Further, this common interpretation of downscaling is
supported by the specification. The specification refers to
"down-scaled Bayer RGB values 61 O," which are formed based
upon 4x4 block averaging. Specification, paragraphs 284 and
285 and FIGS. 51 and 52 ....
There is nothing in the specification that would tend to
suggest any meaning for downscaling other than that which is
commonly known in the art. There is certainly no suggestion in
the specification that downscaling could refer to "cropping," as
the Examiner suggests in the current rejection. Further, one of
ordinaP; skill in the art \vould definitely not interpret scaling
and cropping to be analogous.
App Br. 8-10.
2. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
In rejecting claims 1 and 20, the Examiner relied upon
Koreki as disclosing autofocus statistics based at least in part on
down-scaled image data relating to raw image data.
Specifically, the Examiner analogized Koreki' s disclosure of
using "only part of the image frame" as teaching coarse
statistics based upon downscaled image data. Office action,
pages 6, 10, and 11. As mentioned above, one of ordinary skill
in the art would not interpret the downscaled data recited in the
claims to pertain to a cropped subset of image frame data, but
4
Appeal2014-003010
Application 12/873,978
rather, image data that is resized by a scale factor. Cropping is
clearly not analogous to scaling.
App Br. 13-14.
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 as being anticipated because
Hori fails to disclose the argued limitation?
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because Koreki fails to disclose the argued limitation?
ANALYSIS
As to Appellants' above cited contentions, we agree.
As to the additional new analysis set forth by the Examiner in the
Answer at pages 23-24 (items 16 and 18), we find this new analysis to be
insufficient to show the claims are either anticipated or unpatentable as
being obvious. As to Examiner's item 16, even if we were to adopt the
Examiner's reading of Strom and Fry as correct, these references would only
show Strom's and Fry's definition of scaling and are insufficient, in the face
of the other contradictory references of record and discussed by Appellants,
to show that an artisan would understand the art recognized definition of
scaling to have been changed by these references. As to Examiner's item
18, we agree with Appellants' response to this new analysis:
[T]here is a clear and ordinary meaning of scaling and down-
scaled data. Stripped luminance data does not relate to scaling
under any broad and reasonable interpretation of the term.
Reply Br. 5.
5
Appeal2014-003010
Application 12/873,978
CONCLUSIONS
(1) Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
(2) Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1---6 and 10-25 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(3) On this record, claims 1---6 and 10-25 have not been shown to be
unpatentable.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1---6 and 10-25 are reversed.
REVERSED
6