Ex Parte Julin et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 31, 201612029758 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/029,758 02/12/2008 3624 7590 06/02/2016 VOLPE AND KOENIG, P,C UNITED PLAZA 30 SOUTH 17TH STREET, 18th Floor PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Fred Julin 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. AXIS-PTOll 9411 EXAMINER SURVILLO, OLEG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2442 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/02/2016 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): eoffice@volpe-koenig.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte FRED JULIN and MARTIN NILSSON Appeal2014-007591 Application 12/029,758 Technology Center 2400 Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. Per Curiam. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-14, 16, and 17, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. Claim 15 is canceled. Appeal Brief 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants' disclosure relates to adjusting a zoomed image captured by a camera by "defining a center point of an area of interest" of an original image having an original aspect ratio, and "defining a perimeter for the area Appeal2014-007591 Application 12/029,758 of interest, the perimeter being set to the same aspect ratio as the original aspect ratio," so that a user may "specify exactly what portion of the area of interest will be in the center of the zoomed image," in which the "perimeter lets the user know exactly what portion of the original image will be visible in the zoomed image." Specification i-fi-f 13-14. Representative Claim (Disputed limitations emphasized) 1. A method, in a computer system having a controller, for adjusting a camera, comprising: at the controller: receiving an original image captured by the camera, the original image being defined by a first rectangle having an original aspect ratio related to a length and a height of the first rectangle; receiving a first user input defining a center point of an area of interest of the original image; receiving a second user input defining the area of interest by its perimeter, wherein the perimeter of the area of interest is defined by a second rectangle having a length and a height; setting the perimeter of the area of interest to the same aspect ratio as the original aspect ratio, wherein the perimeter of the area of interest is inscribed in an imaginary circle with a radius having endpoints defined by the center point and the second user input, wherein the second user input is on a perimeter of the imaginary circle, and wherein the second user input is not a point on the perimeter of the area of interest; adjusting the camera view based on the first user input and the second user input to provide a zoomed image of the defined area of interest, wherein the zoomed image is centered on the center point defined by the first user input, and the size of zoomed image being defined by the second user input; and displaying the zoomed image to the user on a display screen. 2 Appeal2014-007591 Application 12/029,758 Rejections on Appeal Claims 1-7, 9, 10, 12-14, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cortjens (US 5,528,289; June 18, 1996) in view of Imler (US 2008/0104027 Al; May 1, 2008). Answer 2; Final Rejection 7. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cortjens in view of Imler, and further in view of Rappaport (US 6,971,063 Bl; November 29, 2005). Answer 9; Final Rejection 14. Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cortjens in view of Imler, and further in view of Kramer (US 2010/0283796 Al; November 11, 2010). Answer 9; Final Rejection 14. ANALYSIS Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Final Rejection (mailed August 29, 2013), the Appeal Brief (filed February 28, 2014), and the Examiner's Answer (mailed May 2, 2014). We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Appellants first argue the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1, because Cortjens fails to teach or disclose the recited "receiving a first user input defining a center point of an area of interest of the original image." Appeal Brief 15. Appellants contend the Examiner relied on two non-analogous embodiments of Cortjens (see Appeal Brief 14), and that Cortjens calculates a center point which is different than "the user determin[ ing] the center point." Appeal Brief 15. Appellants also contend 3 Appeal2014-007591 Application 12/029,758 Cortjens is silent regarding the limitation "receiving a second user input defining an area of interest by its perimeter." Appeal Brief 16. We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. The Examiner finds the claimed "receiving a first user input" is disclosed in Imler. Answer 11, citing Final Rejection 9, which cites Imler i-f 62 and Figures 6 and 7. Similarly, the Examiner finds the claimed "receiving a second user input" is disclosed in Imler. Final Rejection 10 (citing Imler i-fi-1 62, 73 and Figures 5- 7). Appellants' arguments regarding Cortjens are non-persuasive as the arguments fail to address and rebut the Examiner's findings with respect to Imler. Appellants argue that in Cortjens, "the user may draw a rectangle that makes it impossible to expand the picture as desired by the user (see column 18, lines 30-34)." Appeal Brief 16. Appellants contend that because the user may draw a free form rectangle different from that of the original image, a portion of the area of interest rectangle "might be clipped or not shown in the final image," (see Appeal Brief 17) and thus Cortjens fails to teach or disclose the claimed "setting the perimeter of the area of interest to the same aspect ratio as the original aspect ratio." Appeal Brief 17. We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that the example shown in Figures 6A and 6B "clearly demonstrates zooming without clipping and/or distortion." Answer 11-12. The example shown in Figures 6A and 6B teach a zooming function in which aspect ratios are preserved, in which "[t]he rectangle 128 illustrated in connection with FIG. 6A has XM and YM proportions such that zooming in will cause rectangle 128 to nicely fill screen 125." Cortjens 18:26-28 (emphasis omitted). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize 4 Appeal2014-007591 Application 12/029,758 Cortjens as teaching the benefits of zooming while preserving the aspect ratio, even if Cortjens admits other zooming options. Appellants further argue that because the "selected area of interest in Imler is always circular," Imler fails to recite the "receiving a second user input" and "setting the perimeter of the area of interest" limitations. Appeal Brief 20-21. Appellants' argument is unpersuasive of error because Appellants attack Imler individually, and thus fail to address the Examiner's findings. 1 Here, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that: an area of interest defined by the center point and the second user input is inscribed in the imaginary circle created using the radius having center point and handle's position as its endpoints. While the area of interest inscribed in the imaginary circle can be circular, it may also be any other geometric shape that can be defined by a center point and an endpoint. In combination with teachings of Cortjens, what is inscribed in the imaginary circle of Imler is the rectangle of Cortjens. Answer 12; see also Imler Figures 6-7; Cortjens Figure 6A. Accordingly, Appellants have not persuaded us of Examiner error and therefore, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, and independent claim 16 commensurate in scope, as well as claims 2-14 and 1 7 not argued separately with particularity. See Appeal Brief 21- 22. 1 See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ("Non- obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references."). 5 Appeal2014-007591 Application 12/029,758 DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-14, 16, and 17. 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation