Ex Parte Kalama

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 8, 2018

14198235 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 8, 2018)

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.
14/198,235 03/05/2014 ASA KALAMA 13-DIS-363-PR-US-UTL 1814
63652 7590 03/12/2018
DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC.
c/o Marsh Fischmann & Breyfogle LLP
8055 East Tufts Avenue
Suite 450
Denver, CO 80237
EXAMINER
WU, ZHENZHEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2661
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/12/2018 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):
PTOMail @ mfblaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ASA KALAMA
Appeal 2017-008709
Application 14/198,2351
Technology Center 2600
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, NABEEL U. KHAN, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1, 6, 7, 9-12, and 14—22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellant identifies Disney Enterprises, Inc. as the real party in interest.
Br. 1.
Appeal 2017-008709
Application 14/198,235
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
According to Appellant, the invention relates to:
A client device for image capture in an eyes-free manner
or without ongoing observance of the device’s display screen to
ensure proper framing and focusing. The client device may take
the form of a smartphone, tablet, or the like. The client device
includes an image capture application run by a processor to select
a target to be included in a digital image captured by the client
device's camera. The image capture application causes the
processor to operate feedback mechanisms to prompt an operator
of the client device to move the device so as to move the camera
or its lens, before or during the capturing of the digital image,
from a first orientation to a second orientation relative to the
target. The image capture application urges the operator of the
client device to hold their client device so as to better frame or
focus on the selected target.
Abstract.
Exemplary independent claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A client device adapted for enhanced image capture,
comprising:
a processor;
memory accessible by the processor;
a camera with a lens, the camera capturing a digital image
via the lens and storing the captured digital image in the memory;
a body containing the processor, the memory, and the
camera; and
an image capture application run by the processor to select
a target item to be included in the captured digital image, wherein
the image capture application causes the processor to operate one
or more feedback mechanisms to prompt an operator of the client
device to move the body to move the lens of the camera, before
or during the capturing of the digital image, from a first
orientation to a second orientation relative to the target item,
2
Appeal 2017-008709
Application 14/198,235
wherein the image capture application determines the first
orientation and the second orientation using orientation sensing
components in the client device,
wherein the first orientation comprises a first pitch and a
first azimuth and the second orientation comprises a second pitch
and a second azimuth,
wherein the image capture application further acts to
determine a present location of the client device, and
wherein, when the second orientation is within a range of
acceptable orientations for capturing an image of the target item
from the present location, the image capture application
automatically initiates the capturing of the digital image.
References and Rejections2
1. Claims 1,6, 11, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Kuang (US 2014/0362255 Al, publ. Dec. 11, 2014) and
Garcia (US 2014/0300722 Al, publ. Oct. 9, 2014). Final Act. 6-12.
2. Claims 7 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Kuang, Garcia, and Park (US 2015/0016733 Al, publ.
Jan. 15,2015). Final Act. 13.
3. Claim 9 stands rejected 35 U.S.C. § 103 unpatentable over
Kuang, Garcia, and Murakami (US 6,359,650 Bl, iss. Mar. 19, 2002). Final
Act. 14.
4. Claims 14, 16, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Kuang and Sweet (US 2013/0201344 Al, publ. Aug. 8,
2013). Final Act. 14-17.
5. Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Kuang, Sweet, and Park. Final Act. 17—18.
2 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claim 5. See Ans. 18—19.
3
Appeal 2017-008709
Application 14/198,235
6. Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Kuang, Sweet, and Maruyama (WO 2013/187100 Al, publ. Dec. 19,
2013)3. Final Act. 18-19.
7. Claims 18 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Kuang and Park. Final Act. 19-21.
8. Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Kuang, Park, and Sweet. Final Act. 21—22.
9. Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Kuang, Park, and Maruyama. Final Act. 22—23.
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
Claim 1 recites “wherein, when the second orientation is within a
range of acceptable orientations for capturing an image of the target item
from the present location, the image capture application automatically
initiates the capturing of the digital image” (“the disputed limitation”). The
Examiner finds the combination of Kuang and Garcia teaches or suggests the
disputed limitation. Final Act. 6—9.
Appellant first attacks the Examiner’s findings regarding Garcia,
arguing, “Garcia[’s] ‘orientation’ is not a range of pitches AND an azimuth
range” because “Garcia is unconcerned with orienting the camera with
regard to azimuth.” App. Br. 7. Appellant further contends that in Garcia
3 US 2014/0368716 Al is used as the translation for Maruyama. Final Act.
18.
4
Appeal 2017-008709
Application 14/198,235
the range of orientation is not based on the “present location” as recited in
claim 1. App. Br. 7.
Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive. The Examiner relies on
Kuang as teaching camera orientations comprising pitch and azimuth as well
as for teaching that the orientation be based on the present location. Final
Act. 8 (citing Kuang Fig. 9, 64, 66). The Examiner relies on Garcia for
teaching that the camera automatically captures an image when the camera is
within a range of acceptable orientations. Final Act. 9 (citing Garcia 1 53).
We agree with the Examiner’s findings that the combination of Kuang and
Garcia teaches or suggests automatically capturing a digital image when the
second orientation is within a range of acceptable orientations from the
present location.
Turning to Kuang, Appellant takes issue with two aspects of the
disputed limitation. First, Appellant contends, “there is more than one
orientation that will work to capture an image from this location” and
“Kuang fails to show determining the second orientation and encouraging
the operator to reorient their camera to be within this range of orientations.”
Br. 7—8. Second, Appellant also argues that in Kuang “[tjhere is no mention
of determining an acceptable range of orientations . . . from the determined
present location.” App. Br. 8.
Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive. As explained above, the
Examiner relies on Garcia, not Kuang, for teaching the “range of acceptable
orientations” aspect of the disputed limitation. Final Act. 9 (citing Garcia
1 53). Further, Kuang teaches that the “GPS device obtains the global
position of the camera or the mobile device” (Kuang | 64) and “the guiding
system 945 determines whether his interested object is in the viewfinder 924
5
Appeal 2017-008709
Application 14/198,235
based on the current global position of the camera” (Kuang | 66). Thus,
Kuang clearly teaches that the orientation of the camera for capturing the
image is based on the location (or global position) of the device.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and
claims 6, 11, and 12, which were argued together with claim 1. See Final
Act. 9.
Claim 7
Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and recites, “wherein the feedback
mechanisms include a vibration mechanism selectively operable until the
lens of the camera is in the second orientation.” Appellant argues, “Park
does not mention that the vibration ‘signal’ would be provided ‘until the lens
of the camera is in the second orientation. ’” App. Br. 11.
Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive because it attacks Park alone.
The Examiner, however, relies on Kuang as teaching or suggesting that an
indicator helps users locate an interested object to focus on by the camera
and that this “indicator is displayed on the viewfinder until a match is
found.” Ans. 24 (citing Kuang || 65, 66) (emphasis added). Park is relied
upon to teach that the indicator can be a vibration signal. Ans. 24 (citing
Park | 64).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7 and of
claim 10, which was argued together with claim 7. See App. Br. 10-11.
Claim 9
Claim 9 depends from claim 1 and recites, “wherein the feedback
mechanisms include a mechanism adapted to move the body of the client
device within a hand of the operator to automatically move the lens of the
6
Appeal 2017-008709
Application 14/198,235
camera from the first orientation to the second orientation.” The Examiner
finds Murakami teaches or suggests this limitation by disclosing a tilt
adjustment motor of a lens that adjusts the tilt state of the lens. Final Act. 14
(citing Murakami col. 9,11. 14—32).
Appellant agues
Claim 9 does not call for direct movement of the lens. Instead,
claim 9 calls for “the body of the client device” to be moved
“within a hand of the operator” so as to indirectly move the lens
of the camera to the second orientation. Murakami fails to show
that the body of the device holding the lens 101 is moved at all
during the operation of the tilt drive circuit and tilt adjustment
motor.
App. Br. 12.
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument. Instead, we agree with
the Examiner’s finding that Murakami’s tilt adjustment motor teaches or
suggests to the ordinary artisan a mechanism to move the body of the client
device within a hand of the operator, even if the disclosed motor of
Murakami moves the lens directly. “[T]he [obviousness] analysis need not
seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the
challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative
steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int 7 Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Moreover, Appellant has not
presented evidence sufficient to show that moving the body of the device
using an adjustment motor was “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of
ordinary skill in the art” or “represented an unobvious step over” moving the
lens of the device with Murakami’s disclosed motor. Leapfrog Enters., Inc.
v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
7
Appeal 2017-008709
Application 14/198,235
Moreover, we note that Murakami’s Figures 3A and 3B illustrate
charge coupled device (CCD) (i.e., the camera’s image pickup element)
remaining aligned with the lens at every orientation of the lens. This at least
suggests that the body of the camera, or at least that part of the body
comprising the image pickup element, moves within the operator’s hand,
tilting together with the lens. We note that Appellants’ Specification
describes no specific mechanism for moving the body of the client device
within the operator’s hand. We further note that the claim does not require
that the entire body or the client device move within the operator’s hand.
One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that if the lens and the
body (or a portion of the body) move together, it is a mere matter of
semantics as to whether the lens is described as moving the body (or portion
thereof) or the body (or portion) is described as moving the lens.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9.
Claim 14
Claim 14 recites, “generating a prompt page displayed on the display
screen, receiving user input, via the prompt page on the display screen,
selecting one of the potential targets for use as a target item.” The Examiner
relies on Sweet’s user interface for selecting an object in the field of view of
the camera, as teaching the claimed “prompt page” for “selecting one of the
potential targets.” Final Act. 16 (citing Sweet Figs. 5A, 5B, 6,
11 55, 67, 80).
Appellant first argues, “Sweet fails to teach ‘retrieving a set of
potential targets for imaging from the present location, ’ which is a missing
feature from Kuang.” App. Br. 13. Appellant also argues, secondly, “Sweet
fails to teach that once an operator chooses a target image that its devices
8
Appeal 2017-008709
Application 14/198,235
determine ‘a range of orientations for the digital camera for use during
image capture for the target item and for the present location.’” App. Br. 13.
Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive. As to Appellant’s first
argument, as explained above with respect to claim 1, we disagree that
“retrieving a set of potential targets for imaging from the present location,”
is a missing feature from Kuang. With regard to Appellant’s second
argument, the Examiner relies on Kuang, not Sweet, for teaching that a
device determines a range of orientations for the digital camera for the
present location. Final Act. 15 (citing Kuang || 64, 66).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claim 14 and of
claims 15 and 16 which were argued together with claim 14. See App. Br.
13-14.
Claim 22
Claim 22 depends from claim 14 and recites, “wherein the receiving
of the user input is performed prior to focusing of the digital camera on the
target item.” The Examiner finds Kuang and Sweet teach or suggest the
limitations of claim 14. Specifically, the Examiner finds Sweet teaches a
touch screen or user interface for selecting the target and Kuang teaches
receiving user input prior to focusing the camera on the target item. Ans. 29
(citing Sweet | 67; Kuang || 64, 66, Fig. 10B).
Appellant argues claim 22 “is in direct contrast to the teaching of
Kuang such that claim 22 is not shown or suggested for this additional or
independent reason relative to claim 14.” App. Br. 13.
Appellant’s arguments amount to no more than reciting the disputed
limitations and generally alleging that the cited prior art references are
deficient, and are thus conclusory and unpersuasive. See 37 C.F.R.
9
Appeal 2017-008709
Application 14/198,235
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (“A statement which merely points out what a claim recites
will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim”);
see also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[W]e hold that
the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive
arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and
a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the
prior art”).
Claim 17
Appellant argues claim 17 should be allowed for the same “reasons
for allowing claim 13 over Kuang, Sweet, and Maruyama.” App. Br. 14.
No arguments, however, are presented for claim 13.4 Furthermore,
independent claim 13 is not identical to claim 17 and was rejected and
subsequently allowed over Kuang combined with Seeley et al. (US
2014/0126829 Al, publ. May 8, 2014), rather than Kuang, Sweet, and
Maruyama. See Non-Final Action 12 (Feb. 25, 2016); Amendment in
Response to Non-Final Office Action 7 (April 18, 2016) Final Act. 3.
Accordingly, Appellants have not provided sufficient argument for us to
consider whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 17 over Kuang,
Sweet, and Maruyama. Therefore, we summarily sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 17.
Claim 18
Claim 18 recites, “wherein the providing feedback is performed
during operations of the digital camera to capture an image of the target
4 Claim 13 has been allowed by the Examiner. Final Act. 3.
10
Appeal 2017-008709
Application 14/198,235
through the lens and the providing feedback comprises providing tactile or
audio cues to the user via feedback mechanisms of the digital camera.” The
Examiner finds Kuang teaches or suggests providing feedback during
operations of the digital camera to capture an image (Final Act. 19-20
(citing Kuang Fig. 11)), while Park teaches or suggests that the feedback is
tactile (Final Act. 20 (citing Park 164)).
Appellant argues
Park teaches rotating a face and not changing orientation, and
Park does not show that feedback is provided during a video
image capture. Figure 11 of Kuang teaches providing guidance
to focus on the interested and then after focusing is achieved
capturing the image such that the feedback is not provided during
image capture. In contrast, claim 18 requires that the tactile or
audio feedback is provided during operations of the digital
camera to capture a video image (e.g., during recording of a
video image during a live event) and not merely before with
visual cues/guidance.
App. Br. 15.
Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive and incommensurate with the
scope of claim 18. On its face, claim 18 does not require capturing a video
image. Appellant’s Specification also supports an interpretation of the claim
that is broader than just capturing video images. For example, steps
260—90 of method 200 (which Appellant points to as summarizing the
subject matter of claim 18) explicitly encompasses capturing both still and
video images. Thus we agree with the Examiner that, by disclosing a
guidance system that guides the user to move the camera to capture an
image, Kuang teaches or suggests the aforementioned limitations of claim
18.
11
Appeal 2017-008709
Application 14/198,235
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 18. We
also sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 20 and 21, for which
Appellant relied upon the same arguments as for claim 18. See App. Br. 15—
16.
Claim 19
Claim 19 depends from independent claim 18 and recites
wherein the target for image capture comprises a portion of a
venue for a live event and wherein the method further comprises
providing feedback to move the digital camera from the second
orientation to a third orientation to track movement of a user-
selected element of the live event during an image capture
process for the target.
The Examiner finds Kuang and Sweet teach or suggest the limitations of
claim 19. Specifically, the Examiner finds Sweet teaches the target for
image capture to be a live event, and for tracking a particular person over a
period of time at the event. Final Act. 21—22 (citing Sweet | 56). The
Examiner finds Kuang teaches providing feedback to move the digital
camera to the target. Ans. 30 (citing Kuang | 65, Figs. 10A, 10B).
Appellant argues
claim 19 calls for feedback to be provided to track movement of
a user-selected element. Sweet fails to teach providing feedback
but instead automatically tracks a selected target over time in the
camera’s field of view (e.g., as the object/target moves and not
as the camera is moved to track the target/object in response to
feedback provided to an operator). Hence, the combined
teaching of Kuang, Park, and Sweet fails to teach or suggest the
method of claim 19 for this additional reason.
App. Br. 15.
Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive. The Examiner relies upon
Kuang as teaching providing feedback to move the camera from one
12
Appeal 2017-008709
Application 14/198,235
orientation to another. Ans. 30 (citing Kuang | 65, Figs. 10A, 10B). Sweet
is relied upon for teaching that the target can be a live event and that the
camera may track persons at the event as they move from location to
location. Ans. 30—31; see also Sweet || 56, 67. Thus, we agree with the
Examiner, that the combination teaches or suggests tracking a target by
moving the camera from a second orientation to a third orientation.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 6, 7, 9-12, and 14—22 are
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
13