Ex Parte GEORGIS et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 25, 2013

12165285 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

____________________

Ex parte NIKOLAOS GEORGIS, FREDRIK CARPIO, and PAUL JIN
HWANG
____________________

Appeal 2011-010896
Application 12/165,285
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before THU A. DANG, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
GREGORY J. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-010896
Application 12/165,285

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-4 and 6-19. Claim 5 has been canceled. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

A. INVENTION
According to Appellants, the invention relates generally to improving
the image quality during digital zoom in cameras without optical zoom
capability (Spec. 1, ll. 4-5).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claims 1, 6 and 14 are exemplary:

1. A method, comprising:

receiving a user selection of digital zooming in a camera;

responsive to the user selection of digital zooming in the camera and
without further user input, automatically generating plural images by
capturing the images automatically in quick succession within a few seconds
of receiving the user selection of digital zooming in the camera,
transparently to the user;

digitally zooming at least portions of at least some original images,
each original image encompassing an original area, by removing a respective
portion of each of the original images from the respective original image to
render a respective cropped image of the original image and expanding
remaining image pixels in the cropped image to fill an area equal in size to
the original area; and

Appeal 2011-010896
Application 12/165,285

3
superimposing at least some cropped images to produce an improved
digital zoom image transparently to the user.

6. Apparatus, comprising:

an imager;

a processor communlcating with the imager to receive signals
therefrom; and

a computer readable medium accessible to the processor and bearing
instructions to cause the processor, in response to a predetermined user
command, to:

generate at least two images automatically;

digitally zoom each image to render a respective zoomed
image; and

superimpose the zoomed images on each other to render a
modified zoomed image.

14. Apparatus, comprising:

an imager;

a display; and

a processor configured to present on the display a modified digital
zoom image including at least two superimposed images.

Appeal 2011-010896
Application 12/165,285

4
C. REJECTION
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Hijishiri US 6,906,746 B2 June 14, 2005
Nestares US Pat. Pub. 2007/0019887 Jan. 25, 2007
Nikkanen US Pat. Pub. 2007/0019887 A1 Dec. 28, 2006

Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9, 12-15, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as being unpatentable over Hijishiri and Nestares.
Claims 8, 10, 11, 16, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hijishiri, Nestares, and Nikkanen.

II. ISSUES
The dispositive issues before us are whether the Examiner has erred in
finding that the combination of Hijishiri and Nestares teaches or would have
suggested:
1. “responsive to the user selection of digital zooming…,
automatically generating plural images by capturing the images
automatically in quick succession within a few seconds of receiving the user
selection of digital zooming” (claim 1, emphasis added);
2. “superimpose the zoomed images on each other” (claim 6,
emphasis added); and
3. “Apparatus, comprising… an imager; a display; and a processor
configured to present…” (claim 14, emphasis added).

Appeal 2011-010896
Application 12/165,285

5
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Hijishiri
1. Hijishiri discloses a digital still camera comprising a CCD 2
driving by a timing generator 11 to sense the image of the subject at regular
time intervals (col. 4, ll. 56-59; Fig. 1).
2. Digital image data is stored temporarily in an image memory 5
via signal processing circuit (col. 4, ll. 65-67), wherein the image data is
read out of the image memory 5 and is subjected to processing in the signal
processing circuit (col. 5, ll. 38-43).
3. In cropped image sensing, the image within a cropping area is
displayed on the display screen of the liquid crystal display device (col. 5, ll.
16-18).
Nestares
4. Nestares discloses a video surveillance system including a face
detector to automatically select faces in the image as the region of interest,
wherein the area of interest may be interpolated at x7 magnification with or
without super resolution (p. 8, [00730).

IV. ANALYSIS
Claims 1-4 and 6-13
As for claim 1, Appellants contend that in Hijishiri, “[t]he zooming of
the cropped image occurs automatically” and that “nowhere does Hijishiri
teach or suggest generating plural images responsive to a user-generated
digital zooming selection” (App. Br. 5). In particular, Appellants contend
Appeal 2011-010896
Application 12/165,285

6
that “Hijishiri appears to generate images only in response to the shutter
release button 16, which cannot be a digital zoom selector since the full
uncropped image is the only thing generated in response to it” (id.).
Although the Examiner finds that, in Hijishiri, “a plurality of images
of an imaged scene/subject are continuously generated in quick succession”
(Ans. 15), we cannot find any teaching or suggestion in the sections of
Hijishiri referenced by the Examiner of automatically generating plural
images is “responsive to the user selection of digital zooming,” as required
by claim 1.
We agree with the Examiner that Hijishiri discloses generating images
automatically at regular time intervals (FF 1). Further, Hijishiri discloses
cropping an image and displaying the cropped image (FF 2-3). We agree
with the Examiner that the display of the cropped image comprises zooming
of the image. However, we cannot find and the Examiner does not point to
any portion of Hijishiri in which the images are generated responsive to the
zooming.
Since the Examiner has not made a clear showing as to what teachings
of Hijishiri comprise or would have suggested “responsive to the user
selection of digital zooming…, automatically generating plural images by
capturing the images automatically in quick succession within a few seconds
of receiving the user selection of digital zooming” as required by claim 1 ,
we are constrained to reverse the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim
1 and claims 2-4 depending therefrom over Hijishiri in view of Nestares.
As for claim 6, Appellants argue that “no reference digitally zooms
original images by using an expanded cropped image as claimed for
superimposition” (App. Br. 5). Although the Examiner finds that “the
Appeal 2011-010896
Application 12/165,285

7
applied Nestares reference fully discloses a method that digitally zooms
cropped images forming expanded cropped images and subjects the
expanded cropped images to superimposition operations” (Ans. 19), we
cannot find any teaching in the sections of Nestares referenced by the
Examiner that superimposition operations are performed.
Nestares discloses selecting faces in an image as the region of interest,
wherein the area of interest may be interpolated with or without super
resolution (FF 4). That is, in Nestares, the area of interest may be
interpolated.
We cannot determine and the Examiner does not explain where in the
portions of Nestares of a teaching of superimposition operations. Since the
Examiner has not made a clear showing as to what teachings of Nestares
comprise superimposition of zoomed images on each other, as required by
claim 6, we are constrained to reverse the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 6 and claims 7, 9, 12 and 13 depending therefrom over
Hijishiri and Nestares.
The Examiner does not show how Nikkanen cures the deficiencies of
Hijishiri and Nestares. Accordingly, we also reverse the rejection of claims
Claims 8, 10, and 11 depending from claim 6 over Hijishiri and Nestares in
further view of Nikkanen.
Claims 14-19
As for claim 14, we note that the claim merely recites an apparatus
comprising “a processor configured to” present on the display an image
(emphasis added). We find such “configured to” language merely represents
a statement of intended purpose of the processor. An intended purpose will
not limit the scope of the claim because it merely defines a context in which
Appeal 2011-010896
Application 12/165,285

8
the invention operates. Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-
Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Thus, we give
“processor configured to” its broadest reasonable interpretation as any
processor that is capable of presenting an image.
Furthermore, we note that the “a modified digital zoom image
including at least two superimposed images” is merely a data type that the
processor is configured to present on a display. However, what type of data
that is being presented for display does not alter the functionality of or
provide any additional function to presenting of the data. That is, the
limitation is essentially nonfunctional descriptive material in that the
limitation simply describes the type data to be presented but the underlying
functionality remains the same regardless of the data type. Ex parte Nehls,
88 USPQ2d 1883, 1889 (BPAI 2008) (precedential). See Ex parte Curry, 84
USPQ2d 1272, 1274 (BPAI 2005) (informative) (Fed. Cir. Appeal No.
2006-1003), aff’d, Rule 36 (June 12, 2006).
Thus, we conclude that claim 14 merely requires a processor that is
able to present data. We find no error in the Examiner’s conclusion that
Hijishiri in view of Nestares would have at least suggested such processor.
Accordingly, we find that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting independent claim 14 and claims 15, and 17 depending
therefrom over Hijishiri and Nestares.
Appellants do not provide arguments for claims 16, 18, and 19
separate from those of claim 14 (App. Br. 6). Accordingly, claims 16, 18,
and 19 fall with claim 14.

Appeal 2011-010896
Application 12/165,285

9
V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 14-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
affirmed while the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-13 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

ORDER
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

tkl