Ex parte Fujimori

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 30, 1999

08153916 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 30, 1999)

Application for patent filed November 17, 1993.1
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 19
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte YASUHIRO FUJIMORI

_____________
Appeal No. 1996-2822
Application 08/153,9161
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before KRASS, FLEMING and HECKER, Administrative Patent
Judges.
FLEMING, Administrative Patent Judge.
Appeal No. 1996-2822
Application 08/153,916
2
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejec-
tion of claims 1 through 23, all of the claims pending in the
present application.
The invention relates to the detection of image
movement vectors representing movements of objects within
images represented by image signals. On page 2 of the speci-
fication, Appellant discloses that the problem of image move-
ment vector detection is the presence of vibration components.
In other words, apparent object movement within an image can
actually be caused by camera vibration and the apparent move-
ment can be mistaken in the detection process for actual
movement of the object. This results in erroneous image
movement vectors that are produced as a result of image vibra-
tion.
Appellant discloses on page 5 of the specification
that Figure 1 is a block diagram of a video camera in accor-
Appeal No. 1996-2822
Application 08/153,916
3
dance with Appellant's invention and Figure 2 is a block
diagram of an image movement vector detector of Figure 1's
embodiment. On page 9 of the specification, Appellant dis-
closes that the image movement vector detector 6 includes a
vibration vector detecting circuit 10 which is provided with
digitized image data at input 12 and
serves to detect a vibration vector from the image data re-
sulting from vibration of the video camera. The detected
vibration vector is supplied at an output 14 of the circuit
10. The image movement vector detector 6 also includes an
image movement vector detection circuit 16 which receives both
the image data from the input 12 as well as the vibration
vector from the output 14 of the circuit 10. The image move-
ment vector detection circuit serves to detect an image move-
ment vector representing the movement of an object within the
image based on both the image data and the vibration vector.
The image movement vector detection circuit 16 supplies the
image movement vector at an output 20 from which the image
Appeal No. 1996-2822
Application 08/153,916
4
movement vector is supplied to an input 4a of the system
controller 4 of Figure 1.
Independent claim 1 is reproduced as follows:
1. An image movement vector detection apparatus for
detecting an image movement vector from an image signal pro-
duced by a video camera, the image movement vector represent-
ing movement of an object within an image represented by the
image signal, comprising:
vibration vector detecting means for detecting a
vibration vector from the image signal resulting from vibra-
tion of the video camera; and
image movement vector detecting means for detecting
an image movement vector representing movement of an object
within an image represented by the image signal based on both
the image signal and the vibration vector.
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Murphy 3,562,423 Feb. 9, 1971
Kanno et al (Kanno) 4,933,757 June 12, 1990
Kondo et al. (Kondo) 5,198,896 Mar. 30, 1993
Egusa et al. (Egusa) 5,237,405 Aug. 17, 1993
Miyatake et al. (Miyatake) 5,267,034 Nov. 30, 1993
(filed Feb. 25,
1992)
In the final rejection, the Examiner rejects claims
1 through 5, 7 and 14 through 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
being anticipated by Kondo. Also in the final rejection, the
Appeal No. 1996-2822
Application 08/153,916
5
Examiner rejects claims 8 and 19 through 23 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 over Kondo and claims 6, 9 through 13 and 18 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 over Kondo in view of Egusa. In the Examiner's
answer, the Examiner only maintains that claims 6 and 9
through 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kondo in view of Egusa.
The Examiner provides several new grounds of
rejection in the Examiner's answer. In particular, claims 1
through 5, 7 and 14 through 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo. Claim 8 stands
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Kondo in view of Miyatake. Claim 18 is rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Kondo in view of Egusa. Claims 19 through 22 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Kondo in view of Kanno. Claim 23 stands rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo in view of
Murphy.
Appeal No. 1996-2822
Application 08/153,916
Appellant filed an appeal brief on May 4, 1995. 2
Appellant filed a reply brief on September 26, 1995 in
response to the new grounds of rejection.
The Examiner filed an Examiner's answer on July 26, 19953
and a supplemental Examiner's answer on February 1, 1996.
6
Rather that reiterate the arguments of Appellant and
the Examiner, reference is made to the briefs and answers for2 3
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1
through 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The Examiner has failed to set forth a prima facie
case. It is the burden of the Examiner to establish why one
having ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the
claimed invention by the express teachings or suggestions
found in the prior art, or by implications contained in such
teachings or suggestions. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 995,
217 USPQ 1, 6
Appeal No. 1996-2822
Application 08/153,916
7
(Fed. Cir. 1983). "Additionally, when determining
obviousness, the claimed invention should be considered as a
whole; there is no legally recognizable 'heart' of the
invention." Para-Ordnance Mfg. v. SGS Importers Int'l, Inc.,
73 F.3d 1085, 1087, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995),
cert. denied, 117 S.Ct. 80 (1996) citing W. L. Gore & Assoc.,
Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1548, 220 USPQ 303, 309
(Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
Claims 1 through 5, 7 and 14 through 17 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Kondo. In the Examiner's answer, the Examiner states in the
new ground of rejection on page 9 that Kondo does not disclose
an image move- ment vector detecting means as recited in
Appellant's claim 1.
The Examiner argues that Kondo expressly suggests that the
image movement vectors can be detected since vectors clearly
including those caused by motion of an image within the image
plane are shown in Figure 2B and since it is recognized that
movement vectors representing both an image and vibration of
the camera are present within the image plane. The Examiner
Appeal No. 1996-2822
Application 08/153,916
8
further argues that Kondo, in column 1, lines 18 through 24,
discloses that it is known to accurately detect both vibration
and image movement from an image signal and further knows how
to track a movement of a specific image in a video camera
using this image.
On page 2 of the reply brief, Appellant respectfully
submits that the Examiner has seriously misconstrued Kondo.
Appellant argues that the cited portions of the reference, in
fact, suggest nothing more than the possibility that some
motion vectors obtained from an image may represent the motion
of an object within the image, but they do not suggest that
such vectors can be identified as vectors which represent the
movement of an object within an image. Appellant further
argues on page 4 that Figure 2B only serves as a means of
illustrating how the circuit 16 of Kondo decides which areas
of the image contain movement vectors representing image
vibrations and contain no suggestion of how to detect vectors
representing the movement of an object. Appellant further
argues on pages 5 through 7 of the reply brief that the
Examiner has not provided any evidence that one of ordinary
Appeal No. 1996-2822
Application 08/153,916
9
skill in the art would know how to modify the Kondo reference
in order to obtain an image movement vector detecting means
for detecting an image movement vector representing movement
of an object within an image represented by an image signal
based on both the image signal and the vibration vector as
recited in Appellant's claim 1.
In response, the Examiner argues in the supplemental
answer that Kondo in column 1, lines 13 through 24, discloses
to those skilled in the art the know-how to detect image
movement vectors representing movement of objects within an
image. The Examiner further argues that it is clear from this
discussion in Kondo that those skilled in the art already know
how to detect various kinds of motion including detecting and
tracing the motions of specific images. The Examiner argues
that those skilled in the art do know how to detect image
movement vectors representing movement of an object within
an image and this fact is documented by such references as
Hanna (U.S. Patent No. 5,259,040).
We agree with the Examiner that Kondo fails to teach
an "image movement vector detecting means for detecting an
Appeal No. 1996-2822
Application 08/153,916
10
image movement vector representing movement of an object
within an image represented by the image signal based on both
the image signal and the vibration vector" as recited in
Appellant's claim 1. In fact, we note that Kondo fails to
teach "[a]n image movement vector detection apparatus for
detecting an image movement vector from an image signal
produced by a video camera, the image movement vector
representing movement of an object within an image represented
by the image signal" as claimed in
Appellant's claim 1. Upon our review of Kondo, we find that
Kondo is concerned with determining a vibration of the camera.
In column 5, lines 7 through 45, Kondo discloses a vibration
isolation apparatus for preventing a frame vibration of an
image signal. In particular, the output terminal 22 outputs a
signal representing an image vibration movement amount. We
note that Kondo is not concerned with detecting the movement
of an object within an image.
Appeal No. 1996-2822
Application 08/153,916
11
Kondo does disclose that it is known in the prior
art apparatuses for correcting vibration of a video camera,
detecting panning of a video camera, or detecting and tracing
the movement of specific images in a video camera. However,
Kondo does not disclose that it is known in the prior art
apparatus that determines image movement vectors representing
the movement of an object within an image comprising a
vibration vector detection means and an image movement vector
detection means for detecting image movement vectors
representing movement of the object within an image
represented by the image signal based upon both the image
signal and the vibration vector.
In the supplemental answer, the Examiner wishes to
point us to another reference, Hanna, as evidence that it is
known in the prior art to detect image movement vectors
representing the movement of an object within an image.
However, we only have the rejection of these claims based upon
the single reference Kondo before us. Our reviewing court has
Appeal No. 1996-2822
Application 08/153,916
12
stated that where a reference is relied on to support a
rejection, whether or not in a minor capacity, there would
appear to be no excuse for not positively including the
reference in the statement of the rejection. In re Hoch,
428 F.2d 1341, 1342 n.3, 166 USPQ 406, 407 n.3 (CCPA 1970).
Therefore, we find that the Examiner in relying only
on Kondo has failed to show that the prior art teaches an
image movement vector detection apparatus for detecting an
image movement vector from an image signal produced by a video
camera comprising vibration vector detecting means and an
image movement vector detecting means for detecting an image
movement vector representing movement of an object within an
image represented by the image signal based on both the image
signal and the vibration vector as recited in Appellant's
claim 1.
We are not inclined to dispense with proof by
evidence when the proposition at issue is not supported by a
teaching in a prior art reference or shown to be common
knowledge of unquestionable demonstration. Our reviewing
court requires this
Appeal No. 1996-2822
Application 08/153,916
13
evidence in order to establish a prima facie case. In re
Knapp-Monarch Co., 296 F.2d 230, 232, 132 USPQ 6, 8 (CCPA
1961); In re Cofer, 354 F.2d 664, 668, 148 USPQ 268, 271-72
(CCPA 1966).
We note that Appellant's independent claim 19 also
recites a vibration vector detecting means for detecting a
vibration vector and an image movement vector detecting means
for detecting an image movement vector representing movement
of an object within an image represented by the image signal
based upon both the image signal and the vibration vector. We
further note that Appellant's only remaining independent
claim, claim 23, recites a video camera for tracking a moving
object image comprising a vibration vector detecting means for
detecting a vibration vector and an image movement vector
detecting means for detecting an image movement vector
representing the movement of a moving object within an image
represented by the image signal based on both the image signal
and the vibration vector. We note that the Examiner relies on
Kondo for the teaching of an image movement vector detecting
means for detecting an image movement vector based on both the
Appeal No. 1996-2822
Application 08/153,916
14
image signal and the vibration vector. As we have discussed
in great detail above, we have found that Kondo fails to teach
or suggest an image movement vector detecting means for
detecting an image movement vector based on both the image
signal and the vibration vector.
We have not sustained the rejection of claims 1
through 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly, the Examiner's
decision is reversed.
REVERSED
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF
PATENT
MICHAEL R. FLEMING ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge )
INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
STUART N. HECKER )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 1996-2822
Application 08/153,916
15

MRF:psb
Appeal No. 1996-2822
Application 08/153,916
16
Frommer, Lawrence & Haug
745 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10151