Ex Parte Jiao et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 26, 201612645916 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 26, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/645,916 12/23/2009 92556 7590 HONEYWELL/HUSCH Patent Services 115 Tabor Road P.O.Box 377 MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950 07/28/2016 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Hongguang Jiao 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. H0024980 4874/110535 9170 EXAMINER MOE, AUNG SOE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2664 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/28/2016 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): patentservices-us@honeywell.com amy.hammer@huschblackwell.com pto-chi@huschblackwell.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HONGGUANG JIAO, ROBERTS. GAO, and KEVIN LIU Appeal2014-009117 Application 12/645,916 Technology Center 2600 Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY, III, CATHERINE SHIANG, and MELISSA A. RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judges. HAAPALA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-7, 9-11, and 13-17. 1 We have jurisdiction under 3 5 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We reverse. 1 Claims 8 and 12 have been canceled. App. Br. 13-14. Appeal2014-009117 Application 12/645,916 INVENTION Appellants' invention is directed to "systems and methods to reduce image flicker in video surveillance cameras." Spec. if 1. Claim 1 is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A method comprising: capturing a frame from a video data stream of a monitored region at a frame capture rate, the monitored region illuminated by a lighting system with a predetermined cycle variation; determining a minimum common multiple of the frame capture rate and the cycle variation; determining a number of frames captured within the determined minimum common multiple of the frame capture rate and the cycle variation; measuring an accumulation of a multiple of the determined number of frames, wherein measuring the accumulation of the multiple of the determined number of frames substantially eliminates image flicker in the video data stream; and adjusting an exposure time of an automatic exposure control based upon the multiple of the determined number of frames. REJECTIONS ON APPEAL Claims 1, 2, 9--11, and 13-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Mori (US 2008/0101721 A 1; May 1, 2008) and Skow (US 2003/0184659 Al; Oct. 2, 2003). Final Act. 2---6. Claims 3-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Mori, Skow, and Kinoshita (US 2005/0093996 Al; May 5, 2005). Final Act. 6-7. 2 Appeal2014-009117 Application 12/645,916 ISSUE Appellants' contentions present us with the following issue: 2 A) Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Mori and Skow teaches or suggests adjusting an exposure time of an automatic exposure control based upon the multiple of the determined number of frames ("adjusting" limitation), as recited in independent claim 1? ANALYSIS The Examiner finds Mori teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, except the specifics of automatic gain control and automatic exposure control. Final Act. 3--4. The Examiner relies on Skow to teach the use of an AEC (automatic exposure control)/AGC (automatic gain control) control unit to adjust an automatic exposure control and integration point within 10 frame times. Final Act. 5 (citing Skow i-fi-123-30); see also Ans. 8-9. The Examiner further finds Skow describes monitoring a video image signal at a frame rate so that feedback signal 206 can be used to "adjust" an exposure time based on the determined frame rate. Ans. 9 (citing Skow Fig. 2, ,-r 47). Appellants contend that Skow does not teach the disputed limitation because Skow does not disclose the use of multiple frames to adjust an automatic exposure control, but merely discloses the use of an AEC algorithm that adjusts a gain based upon some maximum integration time. App. Br. 7. 2 We do not reach the additional contentions that Appellants present because the identified issue is dispositive of the appeal. 3 Appeal2014-009117 Application 12/645,916 The cited sections of Skow describe "an AEC/ AGC algorithm can converge on the optimal exposure ... within 10 frame times." Skow i-f 23. Skow further describes "automatic exposure control block 205 can perform a continuous monitoring of the sensor signal 200 at a frame rate" and "can also output a feedback signal 206 to a sensor." Skow i-f 47; see also Fig. 2. Although Skow describes adjusting an exposure time of an automatic exposure control, we agree with Appellants that these sections do not describe adjusting the exposure time based upon the multiple of the determined number of frames. Claim 1 requires more than the adjusting be done based on a particular frame rate obtained from a feedback signal or within a number of frames-the adjusting must be done based upon the multiple, which obtains its antecedent basis from the previous limitation (measuring an accumulation of a multiple of the determined number of frames). On this record, and for essentially the same reasons argued by Appellants (App. Br. 7-8), we find the Examiner has not sufficiently established the cited combination of references teaches or suggests "adjusting an exposure time of an automatic exposure control based upon the multiple of the determined number of frames," as expressly required by the contested claim language. (Emphasis added). For the reasons stated above, Appellants persuade us the Examiner has not established the combination of Mori and Skow teaches or suggests the "adjusting" limitation recited in claim 1. Independent claims 11 and 16 recite limitations commensurate in scope to the "adjusting" limitation, and are rejected on the same basis. Accordingly, we reverse the 35 U.S.C. 4 Appeal2014-009117 Application 12/645,916 § 103(a) rejection of independent claims 1, 11, 16, and their dependent claims 2, 9, 10, 13-15, and 17. Regarding the second-stated rejection of claims 3-7, the Examiner did not rely on the additional reference of record (Kinoshita) to teach or suggest the contested "adjusting" limitation. Therefore, the Examiner has not shown that Kinoshita overcomes the aforementioned deficiency regarding the base combination of Mori and Skow. Accordingly, we reverse the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of dependent claims 3-7. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-7, 9-11, and 13-17. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation