Ex Parte Foote

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 14, 2017

13543523 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 14, 2017)

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.
13/543,523 07/06/2012 William Foote 858163.404 7828
38106 7590 09/18/2017
Need TP T aw Orniin T T P/NT fFP ORTOTNATTNOT
EXAMINER
701 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 5400
SEATTLE, WA 98104-7092
BHUIYAN, FAYEZ A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2663
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/18/2017 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):
Patentlnfo @ SeedIP. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
Appeal 2016-006043
Application 13/543,523
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WILLIAM FOOTE
Appeal 2016-006043
Application 13/543,523
Technology Center 2600
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., MICHAEL M. BARRY, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant is appealing the Final Rejection of claims 1, 3—8, 10—16,
18, 19 and 21—28 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 20. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012).
We reverse.
1
Appeal 2016-006043
Application 13/543,523
Introduction
The invention is directed to “an image quality learning method and
system for solid state image sensors.” Specification 1.
Illustrative Claim (disputed limitations emphasized)
1. A method, comprising:
determining, using a data processing device, at least one
starting setting of an image sensor, the starting setting including
a value for at least one controllable parameter of the image
sensor, the at least one controllable parameter including a value
indicative of an average of historic data associated with
previously captured digital images;
receiving, responsive to a user request, a digital image
with the image sensor;
calculating, using the data processing device, an image
metric according to the at least one controllable parameter;
comparing, using the data processing device, the
calculated image metric with a threshold range;
recursively adjusting, using the data processing device,
the value of the at least one controllable parameter until the
calculated image metric is within the threshold range;
storing, using the data processing device, the adjusted
value in a repository of historic data; and
modifying, using the data processing device, the starting
setting based on the adjusted value of the at least one
controllable parameter.
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 3, 5—8, 10, 12—14, 16, 18, 19, and 22—28 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Hoshuyama (US Patent
Application Publication 2003/0146983 Al; published August 7, 2003).
Final Rejection 3—12.
2
Appeal 2016-006043
Application 13/543,523
Claims 4, 11, 15, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Hoshuyama and Official Notice. Final Rejection
13-14.
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed August 24, 2015), the Reply Brief (filed
May 19, 2016), the Final Rejection (mailed March 25, 2015) and the Answer
(mailed March 23, 2016) for the respective details.
Appellant contends:
While the control parameters or conditions may fall within
threshold ranges, there does not appear to be any discussion or
disclosure in Hoshuyama of recursively adjusting the value of a
controllable parameter until the calculated image metric is within
a threshold range. and storing the adjusted value. In other words,
Hoshuyama does not recursively adjust the value of a
controllable parameter until the value is within a threshold range.
Instead, Hoshuyama adjusts the value of a controllable parameter
based on where it currently falls within one or more threshold
ranges during a periodic adjustment.
Appeal Brief 21.
The Examiner finds Hoshuyama teaches recursively adjusting the
value of at least one parameter within a threshold range. Final Rejection 4
(citing Hoshuyama, figure 6, 99-108, 114). In the Advisory Action, the
Examiner finds, “Hoshuyama teaches recursively adjusting, using the data
processing device, the value of the at least one controllable parameter until
the calculated image metric is within the threshold range.” (citing
Hoshuyama Figures 1—5 in addition to Figure 6 that was originally relied
upon in the Final Rejection to teach the recursively adjusting limitation
3
Appeal 2016-006043
Application 13/543,523
recited in the claims). Hoshuyama discloses a 1st embodiment in Figures 1—
5 and a 2nd embodiment in Figure 2. See Hoshuyamall 43—48.
The Examiner further finds:
Hoshuyama teaches image processing device 13 repetitively
calculates new control parameters and updating previous control
parameters and the values of previous conditional information
and repeats processing in fig.2 or steps 1 to 6 in fig.6 based on
the weighting rates. Also, the control parameters processing and
correcting repetitively calculated for preparation for next image
pick up (See more details in fig.6, Para.0114-0130 or fig.2,
para.0066-0081).
Answer 2—3.
Hoshuyama discloses in paragraph 114:
In the electronic camera 1, the control parameter
calculating part 30 repetitively calculates control parameters at
predetermined time intervals regardless of whether or not the
release button is pressed down___Then, when the release button
is pressed down, the image pickup part 11 performs an exposure
control using the latest control parameters calculated
immediately before the press-down. . . .
Hoshuyama discloses in paragraph 115:
In the second embodiment, the memory 31 stores therein,
as values of previous conditional information, three previous
determination results from the color temperature determining
part 15, contrast determining part 16, color detecting part 17 and
photometric sensor 18. The values of brightness which the
photometric sensor 18 determines are standardized to values
suitable for control parameters to be used for the exposure
control.
Appellant argues:
As previously noted there is no disclosure in paragraphs
99-108 and 114 or in Figure 6 of recursively adjusting anything
“until the calculated image metric is within a threshold range,”
4
Appeal 2016-006043
Application 13/543,523
as recited. Instead, each adjustment is based on where a
parameter fails within one or more threshold ranges. The
Examiner provides no explanation for how the newly cited
portions of Hoshuyama allegedly cure this deficiency, and the
newly cited portions [do] not cure this deficiency.
Reply Brief 4.
We agree with Appellant that Hoshuyama does not teach recursively
adjusting the value of a controllable parameter until it is within a threshold
range of a calculated image metric as recited in claim 1. Further, the
Examiner relies upon two separate embodiments within Hoshuyama without
providing sufficient reasoning as to why Hoshuyama anticipates repeatedly
adjusting the value of a controllable parameter until it is within a threshold
range of a calculated image metric as recited in claim 1.1 We find
Appellant’s argument that the Examiner’s newly cited portions of
Hoshuyama did not provide an explanation as to why the claims were
anticipated by Hoshuyama persuasive.2
1 “Because the hallmark of anticipation is prior invention, the prior art
reference — in order to anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102 — must not only
disclose all elements of the claim within the four comers of the document,
but must also disclose those elements arranged as in the claim.'1'’ Net
Moneyln, Inc. v. Verisign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
(emphasis added; citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also id.
at 1371 (“Thus, it is not enough that the prior art reference discloses part of
the claimed invention, which an ordinary artisan might supplement to make
the whole, or that it includes multiple, distinct teachings that the artisan
might somehow combine to achieve the claimed invention.”).
2 37 C.F.R. § 1.104(c)(2) (“In rejecting claims for want of novelty or for
obviousness, the examiner must cite the best references at his or her
command. When a reference is complex or shows or describes inventions
5
Appeal 2016-006043
Application 13/543,523
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of
claim 1, as well as independent claims 6, 16, 19, and 22, which are
commensurate in scope vis-a-vis the disputed limitations. We also reverse
the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of dependent claims 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12—
14, 18, and 23—28 for the same reasons stated above. We reverse the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claims 4, 11, 15, and 21
because the Official Notice taken by the Examiner did not cure the noted
deficiencies of Hoshuyama. See Final Rejection 13—14.
DECISION
The Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 1, 3, 5—8, 10, 12—14,
16, 18, 19, and 22—28 is reversed.
The Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 4, 11, 15, and 21 is
reversed.
REVERSED
other than that claimed by the applicant, the particular part relied on must be
designated as nearly as practicable. The pertinence of each reference, if not
apparent, must be clearly explained and each rejected claim specified.”).
The procedural burden of establishing a prima facie case is carried when the
rejection satisfies 35 U.S.C. § 132, in “notifying] the applicant. . . [by]
stating the reasons for [its] rejection, or objection or requirement, together
with such information and references as may be useful in judging of the
propriety of continuing the prosecution of [the] application.” 35 U.S.C.
§ 132. This section “is violated when a rejection is so uninformative that it
prevents the applicant from recognizing and seeking to counter the grounds
for rejection.” In re Jung 637 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing
Chester v. Miller, 906 F.2d 1574, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
6