Ex Parte Doepke et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 26, 201613109878 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/109,878 05/17/2011 61947 7590 08/30/2016 Apple - Blank Rome c/o Blank Rome LLP 717 Texas Avenue, Suite 1400 HOUSTON, TX 77002 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Frank Doepke 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. Pl0712US1 (l 19-0224US1) 2328 EXAMINER MIKESKA, NEIL R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2485 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/30/2016 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): mbrininger@blankrome.com houstonpatents@blankrome.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte FRANK DOEPKE and JIANPING ZHOU1 Appeal2015-001021 Application 13/109,878 Technology Center 2400 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, CARLL. SILVERMAN, and JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1-9, 11-13, and 15-29. Claims 10 and 14 have been canceled. App. Br. 16-17. We have jurisdiction over the remaining pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify Apple Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3. Appeal2015-001021 Application 13/109,878 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants' invention is directed to panoramic photography and, more specifically, "to techniques for improving panoramic photography for handheld personal electronic devices with image sensors." Spec. i-f 2. In a disclosed embodiment, an image capture device also comprises positional sensors. Spec. i-f 56. As individual images are captured to compose an overall panoramic image, positional information may also be used to perform perspective corrections. Spec. i-fi-151, 56-58. Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below with the disputed limitation emphasized in italics: 1. An image processing method, comprising: obtaining a first image at a first time from a device comprising a lens and an image sensor; obtaining a second image at a second time from the device; • • • • 1 • -C • .c. • t. ,..J • t. receivmg positiona1 m1ormatwn irom a sensor m tue uevice, tue positional information indicating an amount of change in the position of the device between the first and second times; applying an amount of perspective correction to either the first or the second image, wherein the amount of perspective correction comprises a first number of pixels calculated based, at least in part, on a focus level of the lens, a resolution of the image sensor, and the received positional information; and registering the first image with the second image. The Examiner's Rejections 1. Claims 1-5, 8, 17-19, 21, 25, 28, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cheng (US 2007/0081081 2 Appeal2015-001021 Application 13/109,878 Al; Apr. 12, 2007) and Ishii (US 2011/0157386 Al; June 30, 2011). Final Act. 2-6. 2. Claims 6, 7, 9, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cheng, Ishii, and Cheong (US 2011/0110605 Al; May 12, 2011 ). Final Act. 6-7. 3. Claims 11-13, 15, 16, 20, 23, 24, 26, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cheng, Ishii, and Stec et al. (US 2011/0141300 Al; June 16, 2011) ("Stec"). Final Act. 7-9. Issue on Appeal Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Cheng and Ishii teaches or suggests: applying an amount of perspective correction to either the first or the second image, wherein the amount of perspective correction comprises a first number of pixels calculated based, at least in part, on a focus level of the lens, a resolution of the image sensor, and the received positional information, as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS2 Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Cheng and Ishii teaches, inter alia, the disputed limitation of claim 1. App. Br. 7-8, 11-12. In particular, Appellants assert Ishii operates conceptually 2 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed July 18, 2014 ("App. Br."); the Reply Brief, filed October 28, 2014 ("Reply Br."); the Examiner's Answer, mailed on August 28, 2014 ("Ans."); and the Final Office Action ("Final Act."), mailed on December 31, 2013, from which this Appeal is taken. 3 Appeal2015-001021 Application 13/109,878 opposite to Appellants' invention. App. Br. 11. Appellants contend Ishii uses a control apparatus to drive the movement of the camera via the rotation of an electric mount. App. Br. 12 (citing Ishii i-f 55). Appellants further contend the movement of the camera, as taught in Ishii is based on a pre- calculated determination of how much perceptive distortion is likely to be present, based on a given image of an image plane at a given distance from the camera. App. Br. 12 (citing Ishii i-fi-141, 55). By contrast, Appellants assert the claimed invention reacts to an amount of movement of the image capture device by calculating the amount of perspective correction. App. Br. 11. Appellants note "[t]he amount by which the image capture device is moved between the capture of successive images is completely driven by the user of the device ... and is not controlled or driven by any sort of 'control apparatus' attached to the camera." App. Br. 11. Appellants conclude: Ishii doesn't teach the calculation in real-time of an amount of perspective correction (in terms of a first number of pixels) that needs to be applied to the most recently captured image based on the amount that the image capture device is rotated by the user, as is recited by the claims. App. Br. 12. The Examiner finds the features upon which Appellants rely are not recited in the claim language. Ans. 12. Specifically, the Examiner finds the claim language does not require that perspective correction be a reaction to image capture device movement or that an amount of perspective correction be calculated in real-time. Ans. 12. Additionally, we note the claim does not require the movement of the image capture device be completely driven by a user, nor does the claim language preclude the movement of the image capture device be accomplished via a control apparatus. 4 Appeal2015-001021 Application 13/109,878 Appellants dispute the Examiner's determination that the perspective correction is a reaction to the movement of the image capture device, as asserted by Appellants, is not recited in the claim language. Reply Br. 5-7. Appellants contend a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the claim language of "applying an amount of perspective correction ... based, at least in part on ... the received positional information" to effectively mean "determining an amount of perspective correction in reaction to ... the received positional information." Reply Br. 6 (emphases omitted). Further, Appellants assert a person of ordinary skill would understand the claim language to also be equivalent to "the calculation in real-time of an amount of perspective correction (in terms of a first number of pixels) that needs to be applied to the most recently captured image based on the amount that the image capture device is rotated by the user." Reply Br. 8. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). We agree with the Examiner that the claim language does not recite the features relied upon by Appellants. In particular, there is no requirement of a real-time calculation of perspective correction. Additionally, we note the claim does not require the movement of the image capture device be completely driven by a user, nor does the claim language preclude the movement of the image capture device be accomplished via a control apparatus. Accordingly, Appellants' arguments are not commensurate with the scope of claim 1 and, thus, do not persuade us of error in the Examiner's rejection. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability). 5 Appeal2015-001021 Application 13/109,878 For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. Further, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 2-9, 11-13, and 15-29, which were not argued separately. See App. Br. 7; see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-9, 11-13, and 15-29. 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 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation