Ex Parte Cross et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 29, 2016

13094460 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/094,460 04/26/2011 Kyle Cross
33438 7590 03/03/2016
TERRILE, CANNATTI, CHAMBERS & HOLLAND, LLP
P.O. BOX 203518
AUSTIN, TX 78720
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.
DC-18859 1688
EXAMINER
JOSHI, SUNITA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2656
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/03/2016 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):
tmunoz@tcchlaw.com
kchambers@tcchlaw.com
heather@tcchlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KYLE CROSS, CARL TON ANDREWS,
and THOMAS A. SHOWS
Appeal2014-006620
Application 13/094,460 1
Technology Center 2600
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JON M. JURGOV AN, and
KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-20, which constitute all the claims pending in
this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Appellants indicate the Real Party in Interest is Dell Products, L.P. App.
Br. 1.
Appeal2014-006620
Application 13/094,460
Invention
The claimed invention relates to the field of information handling
system audiovisual communication, and more particularly to white balance
adjustment of an image at an information handling system. Spec. i-f 1.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 is reproduced below with disputed limitations
emphasized:
1. An information handling system comprising:
a processor operable to process information;
memory interfaced with the processor and operable to store the
information;
a display interfaced with the processor and operable to present the
information as images;
a camera interfaced with the processor and operable to capture images
as visual information;
a white balance module operable to analyze the visual information to
adjust the presentation of the images at the display based upon a white
baiance associated with the visuai information; and
an image analyzer interfaced with the white balance module, the
image analyzer operable to analyze the visual information to identify a
predetermined image having a perimeter and to alter the white balance
module to analyze only visual information within the perimeter to adjust the
presentation of the images at the display including visual information
outside the perimeter.
Applied Prior Art
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Jenkins
Michrowski
US 2006/0082676 Al
US 2012/0007940 Al
2
Apr. 20, 2006
Jan. 12,2012
Appeal2014-006620
Application 13/094,460
Rejections
Claims 1-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Jenkins and Michrowski.
Claims 9-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Michrowski.
ANALYSIS
Section 103 Rejection - Independent Claim 1
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim
1 because the combination of Jenkins and Michrowski fails to teach or
suggest "to alter the white balance module to analyze only visual
information within the perimeter to adjust the presentation of the images at
the display including visual information outside the perimeter." App. Br. 4.
Appellants argue "neither Jenkins nor Michrowski suggest analyzing a
portion of a display to correct an entire display or at least an area other than
the analyzed portions." App. Br. 4--5. We disagree.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, Michrowski teaches "blurring of
the image outside the detected face, which can be considered as adjusting the
presentation of the images including visual information outside the
perimeter." Ans. 3 (citing Michrowski Abstract; i-fi-130-33, 39). Moreover,
Jenkins, which was also cited by the Examiner, expressly teaches, "the
luminance values of the pixels of interest may be analyzed to determine if
there are luminance values above a predetermined upper limit. If not, the
exposure correction may indicate that the exposure of the image needs to be
increased. Jenkins i133 (emphasis added).
3
Appeal2014-006620
Application 13/094,460
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner's finding that the
combination of Jenkins and Michrowski teaches or suggests "to alter the
white balance module to analyze only visual information within the
perimeter to adjust the presentation of the images at the display including
visual information outside the perimeter," as recited in claim 1.
Section 102 Rejection - Independent Claims 9, 16
Appellants contend the Examiner erred rejecting independent claims 9
and 16 because Michrowski fails to disclose "performing a white balance of
the entire image based upon an analysis of light associated with the
perimeter and excluding light outside the perimeter," as recited in claim 9
and similarly in claim 16. Appellants argue, "nothing in Michrowski
discloses applying a white balance adjustment for a part of an image to the
presentation of an entire image." App. Br. 3. We agree.
"[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or
on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability." In
re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). "[A]nticipation of a claim
under § 102 can be found only if the prior art reference discloses every
element of the claim .... " In re King, 801F.2d1324, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
(citing Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. Am. Hoist & Derrick Co., 730
F.2d 1452, 1457 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). "[A]bsence from the reference of any
claimed element negates anticipation." Kloster Speedsteel AB v. Crucible
Inc., 793 F.2d 1565, 1571 (Fed. Cir 1986).
Here, the Examiner finds Michrowski teaches "adjustment to a
detected face and also teaches blurring of the image outside the detected
face, which can be considered as adjusting the presentation of the images
including visual information outside the perimeter." Ans. 4--5 (citing
4
Appeal2014-006620
Application 13/094,460
iviichrowski i1i130-33, 39). Claim 9, however, requires "performing a white
balance of the entire image based upon an analysis of light associated with
the perimeter", not merely "blurring the image" or "adjusting the
presentation of the image" as the Examiner finds. We are persuaded the
Examiner erred. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent
claims 9 and 16, along with claims 10-15 and 17-20, which depend
therefrom.
Remaining Claims 2---8
Appellants have not presented separate, substantive arguments with
respect to claims 2-8. See App. Br. 7-10. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of these claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv)
(2012).
DECISION
We AFFIIUvf the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-8.
We REVERSE the Examiner's rejection of claims 9-20.
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).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
5