Ex Parte David et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 27, 201713240159 (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. 13/240,159 09/22/2011 Paul David AT ,T EG-227AT JS 7349 22494 7590 03/01/2017 DALY, CROWLEY, MOFFORD & DITRKEE, LLP SUITE 301A 354A TURNPIKE STREET CANTON, MA 02021-2714 EXAMINER REISNER, NOAM S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2852 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): docketing@dc-m.com amk@dc-m.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PAUL DAVID and SHAUN D. MILANO Appeal 2016-000319 Application 13/240,159 Technology Center 2800 Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, JENNIFER R. GUPTA, and MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 1—7. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 In this decision, we refer to the Final Office Action mailed July 24, 2014 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed March 20, 2015 (“App. Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer mailed August 4, 2015 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed October 2, 2015 (“Reply Br.”). 2 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Allegro Microsystems, LLC. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2016-000319 Application 13/240,159 Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claims on appeal. 1. A method of focusing a lens in a camera module having a voice coil actuator to effect displacement of the lens, comprising: determining a displacement range value for the lens; determining a per-frame value based on the displacement range value for the lens and a desired number of frames; using the per-frame value and a current frame number to determine a value corresponding to a desired displacement of the lens; and providing a request comprising the value corresponding to the desired displacement of the lens as an input to a device that adjusts a drive current supplied to a coil of the voice coil actuator according to the value corresponding to the desired displacement of the lens and an internal feedback loop in the device until the desired displacement of the lens has been effected by the voice coil actuator. App. Br. 22 (Claims Appendix). DISCUSSION The Examiner maintains the following rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claims 1—4 as unpatentable over Nakahara (US 7,502,065 B2, issued Mar. 10, 2009) (hereinafter “Nakahara”) in view of Ishikawa et al. (US 2003/0012568 Al, published Jan. 16, 2003) (hereinafter “Ishikawa”) and Masuda (US 2007/0189745 Al, published Aug. 16, 2007) (hereinafter “Masuda”); and claims 5—7 as unpatentable over Nakahara, Ishikawa, Masuda, and further in view of Mayer JR et al. (US 2003/0025802 Al, published Feb. 6, 2003) (hereinafter “Mayer”) and Ono (US 8,417,107 B2, issued Apr. 9, 2013) (hereinafter “Ono”). Final Act. 10—16. 2 Appeal 2016-000319 Application 13/240,159 Appellants argue claims 1—7 in the following subgroups: 1) claims 1— 4; 2) claim 5; 3) claim 6; and 4) claim 7. App. Br. 6—20. We address each group in turn. Subgroup 1 — Claims 1—4 The Examiner finds that Nakahara discloses a method of focusing a lens in a camera module similar to the method of claim 1, but “does not specifically disclose an internal feedback loop for controlling the lens position” and “does not specifically disclose the actuator is a voice coil actuator.” Final Act. 10—11. In particular, the Examiner cites step S13 in Nakahara’s Figure 6 as teaching a step of “determining a displacement range value for the lens,” and cites steps SI5—S20 in Nakahara’s Figure 6 as teaching the steps of “determining a per-frame value based on the displacement range value for the lens and a desired number of frames” and “using the per-frame value and a current frame number to determine a value corresponding to a desired displacement of the lens.” Final Act. 10. Appellants argue that “[t]here is nothing in the cited portion of Nakahara that teaches anything about determining a per-frame value much less determining a per-frame value based on a displacement range value for the lens and a desired number of frames.” App. Br. 8. Nakahara is directed to a focus detection method for detecting the focus state of a digital camera on an object in accordance with the contrast of an image thereof captured by the digital camera, and an apparatus using such a focus detection method. Nakahara 1:7—12. Figure 6 in Nakahara is a flow chart showing a contrast autofocus process performed in a digital camera shown in Figure 1. Id. at 5:34—35. Nakahara discloses that step S13 in Figure 13 is a focus initializing process where the focusing lens group FI 3 Appeal 2016-000319 Application 13/240,159 is simply moved to one of the opposite ends of the moving range of the focusing lens group, specifically to the closest (shortest) focus position. Nakahara 8:9-16. The Examiner, however, has not directed us to any teaching or suggestion in Nakahara that step S13 in Figure 6 is a step of “determining a displacement range value for the lens” as recited in claim 1. Nakahara discloses that in step S15 of Figure 6, a variable Pulse[PN] is set to the current pulse number PN, which is 0 (zero), corresponding to the closest (shortest) focus position. Id. at 8:17—19. In step S17, a contrast value calculating process is performed. Id. at 8:19-26. In the contrast value calculating process, a contrast value P[0], when the focusing lens group FI is positioned at the closest (shortest) focus position, is calculated in accordance with the image data input from the image pickup device. Id. Subsequently in step S19, the pulse number PN is increased by one, and then in step S21, the lens drive mechanism 27 is driven stepwise in a direction toward the infinite focus position. Id. at 8:27—30. Namely, in steps S19 and S21, the focusing lens group FI is made to start moving stepwise in a direction from the closest (shortest) focus position to the infinite focus position. Id. at 8:30-32. The Examiner interprets the distance between one pulse number to the next (from PN —> PN+1) in Nakahara as equivalent to the “per-frame value” recited in claim 1. Final Act. 5—6; see also Ans. 4. This interpretation, however, is inconsistent with the plain language of claim 1 which recites that a per-frame value is determined “based on the displacement range value for the lens and a desired number of frames.” Claim 1 (emphasis added). As discussed above, the Examiner has not established that Nakahara discloses 4 Appeal 2016-000319 Application 13/240,159 teaches or suggests “determining a displacement range value for the lens” as recited in claim 1. In addition, the Examiner interprets using the current lens position as equivalent to the claimed “frame number.” Final Act. 5. The Examiner, however, does not direct us to any teaching in Nakahara of a “desired number of frames.” See Final Act. 5, 10. Because the Examiner has not directed us to any teaching or suggestion in Nakahara of “determining a displacement range value for the lens” or “a desired number of frames,” on this record, the Examiner has not carried the initial burden to establish that Nakahara teaches or suggests “determining a per-frame value based on the displacement range value for the lens and a desired number of frames.” The Examiner does not find that either Ishikawa or Masuda teach this claim recitation. See Final Act. 10—13; Ans. 3—6. Accordingly, on this record, the Examiner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that the method of claim 1 would have been obvious over the combination of Nakahara, Ishikawa, and Masuda. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1—4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Nakahara, Ishikawa, and Masuda. Subgroup 2 — Claim 5 Claim 5 depends from claim 1. The Examiner relies on the same erroneous findings regarding claim 1 in rejecting claim 5. See Final Act. 13. The Examiner does not find that Mayer or Ono cure the deficiencies of Nakahara, Ishikawa, and Masuda regarding claim 1 discussed above. See id. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claim 5 over the 5 Appeal 2016-000319 Application 13/240,159 combination of Nakahara, Ishikawa, Masuda, Mayer, and Ono for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Subgroup 3 — Claim 6 Claim 6 is directed to a method of focusing a lens in a camera module having a voice coil actuator to effect displacement of the lens comprising, inter alia, determining a displacement range value for the lens by obtaining a value corresponding to a position of the lens when no current is supplied to a coil of the voice coil actuator, obtaining a second value corresponding to a second position of the lens when a maximum drive current is supplied to the coil, wherein obtaining the second value comprises providing a maximum current drive request to a device that causes the maximum drive current to be supplied to the coil, and determining a difference between the first value and the second value. Appellants argue that Nakahara, Ishikawa, Masuda, Mayer, and Ono do not disclose or suggest “determining a displacement range value,” as recited in claim 6. App. Br. 14. The Examiner acknowledges that Nakahara does not disclose “determining a displacement range value,” and instead relies on Mayer (claim 21) and Ono (Figure 3B) for this recitation. Final Act. 13, 14—15. Claim 21 of Mayer depends from claim 11, which is directed to a system for remotely controlling the operation of a camera having a video signal tap and a lens including the operation of at least a start/stop switch of the camera and lens focus and T-stop adjustment motors of the lens, comprising, inter alia, a controller and motor driver unit having memory and processing means for selective operation with a plurality of different cameras and lenses. See Mayer claim 11. Claim 21 further requires “said 6 Appeal 2016-000319 Application 13/240,159 memory and processing means function to calibrate the lens motor adjustments by recording in the memory an extreme maximum and an extreme minimum adjustment positions achieved by the lens motors.” Ono’s Figure 3B is a graph illustrating a relationship between the voltage value applied in one direction to the voice coil motor and the lens position. Ono col. 5,11. 37—39. The Examiner finds that: While Mayer does not specifically recite a step of particularly recording the distance between the first position and the end position, by sensing and storing the positions of the beginning and end lens positions, the difference between the two is inherently determined, even if it is not necessarily actively calculated by Mayer. Final Act. 15 (emphasis added). The Examiner, however, has not directed us to any teaching or suggestion in Mayer or Ono of “determining a displacement range” in the specific manner recited in claim 6, “by obtaining a value corresponding to a position of the lens when no current is supplied to a coil of the voice coil actuator, obtaining a second value corresponding to a second position of the lens when a maximum drive current is supplied to the coil, wherein obtaining the second value comprises providing a maximum current drive request to a device that causes the maximum drive current to be supplied to the coil, and determining a difference between the first value and the second value.” In the Answer, the Examiner appears to find that Nakahara teaches determining a displacement range as recited in claim 6. Ans. 11. For the reasons discussed above regarding claim 1, the Examiner has not directed us to any teaching or suggestion in Nakahara of “determining a displacement range value for the lens,” let alone determining that value in the specific 7 Appeal 2016-000319 Application 13/240,159 manner recited in claim 6. Nor does the Examiner contend that Ishikawa or Masuda teach or suggest this limitation. Accordingly, the Examiner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that the method of claim 6 would have been obvious over the combination of Nakahara, Ishikawa, Masuda, Mayer, and Ono. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Nakahara, Ishikawa, Masuda, Mayer, and Ono. Subgroup 4 — Claim 7 Claim 7 is directed to a method of focusing a lens in a camera module, comprising, inter alia, determining a displacement range for the lens; and using the displacement range to request a desired displacement of the lens. Appellants argue that Nakahara does not teach or suggest “using the displacement range to request a desired displacement of the lens,” as recited in claim 7. App. Br. 18. The Examiner finds that Nakahara’s Figure 6, step S13 teaches “determining a displacement range for the lens,” and Figure 6, step S27, teaches “using the displacement range to request a desired displacement of the lens.” Final Act. 15. For the reasons discussed above regarding Subgroup 1, the Examiner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that Nakahara’s step S13 teaches or suggests “determining a displacement range for the lens.” Nakahara discloses that in step 27 the pulse number is merely increased by one. Nakahara 8:39-40. The Examiner, however, has not 8 Appeal 2016-000319 Application 13/240,159 directed us to any teaching or suggestion in Nakahara that step 27 is a step of “using the displacement range to request a desired displacement of the lens.” Accordingly, on this record, the Examiner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 7 would have been obvious over the combination of Nakahara, Ishikawa, Masuda, Mayer, and Ono. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Nakahara, Ishikawa, Masuda, Mayer, and Ono. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—7 are reversed. REVERSED 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation