Ex Parte Kaneko

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 9, 2019

14219497 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 9, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/219,497 03/19/2014
53124 7590 05/13/2019
ALG INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, LLC
10808 S. River Front Parkway, Suite 3100
SOUTH JORDAN, UT 84095
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Eiji Kaneko
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.
1013.1234B 8908
EXAMINER
LE, BAO-LUAN Q
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2882
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/13/2019 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):
53124@alg-ip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte EIJI KANEKO
Appeal2018-003138
Application 14/219,497
Technology Center 2800
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, WESLEY B. DERRICK, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.
CASHION, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Appellant's invention relates to a projector and a control method of a
projector. Spec. ,r 2. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A projector which projects projection light representing
an image onto a projection surface, comprising:
a focus adjusting unit which adjusts a focus of the
projection light according to a manual operation;
an adjustment image projecting unit which projects an
adjustment image containing a portion representing a
predetermined pattern by the projection light;
Appeal2018-003138
Application 14/219,497
an imaging unit which shoots the projection surface to
which the adjustment image is projected;
a specifying unit which specifies a focusing condition of
the focus on the projection surface by analyzing an image data
that is created by the imaging unit; and
a condition indicating unit which displays the specified
focusing condition, wherein the adjustment image includes:
a first portion that includes a bar graph representing the
specified focusing condition by showing a degree of
correspondence between a position of focus of the projection
light and a position of the projection surface, and
a second portion that represents the predetermined
pattern.
Independent claim 12 is directed to a method for controlling a
projector that includes a focus adjusting unit for adjusting a focus of
the projection light according to a manual operation.
Appellant1 (see generally App. Br.) requests review of the following
rejections from the Examiner's Final Action:
I. Claims 1-8 and 10-14 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) unpatentable over Matsumoto (US 2007/0002287 Al, published
January 4, 2007), Eguchi (US 4,382,665, issued May 10, 1983), Williams
(US 2006/0109426 Al, published May 25, 2006), and Onozawa
(JP20032629IOA, published September 19, 2003, and relying on US
2003/0174233 Al to Masauro Onozawa, published September 18, 2003, as
an English equivalent2).
1 Seiko Epson Corporation is the Applicant/ Appellant and is identified as the
real party in interest. App. Br. 3.
2 In our opinion, we cite to the U.S. Patent Application Publication to
Onozawa as the translation to the corresponding foreign reference because,
2
Appeal2018-003138
Application 14/219,497
II. Claim 9 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
unpatentable over Matsumoto, Eguchi, Williams, Onozawa, and Kamiya
(US 2006/0170877 Al, published August 3, 2006).
III. Claims 15 and 16 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
unpatentable over Matsumoto, Eguchi, Williams, Onozawa, and Nozaki (US
2008/0024738 Al, published January 31, 2008).
Appellant argues independent claims 1 and 12 together and do not
present separate arguments for any of the rejected dependent claims. See
generally App. Br. Accordingly, we select claim 1 as representative of the
subject matter claimed and decide the appeal based on the arguments made
by Appellant in support of the patentability of claim 1.
ANALYSIS
After review of the respective positions that Appellant provides in the
Appeal and Reply Briefs and the Examiner provides in the Final Action and
Answer, we affirm the prior art rejections of claims 1-16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) for the reasons the Examiner presents and add the following.
Claim 1 is directed to a projector comprising an adjustment image
having a first portion that includes a bar graph and a second portion that
represents a predetermined pattern.
The Examiner finds that the combined teachings of Matsumoto,
Eguchi, and Williams suggest a projector that differs from the claimed
invention in that the combined teachings do not teach an adjustment image
that has a first portion that includes a bar graph representing a specified
focusing condition and a second portion that represents a predetermined
pattern. Final Act. 3--4. The Examiner particularly finds that Williams
as Appellant notes, it is a more accurate and easier to understand than the
machine translation cited in the Final Action. App. Br. 8, fn 1.
3
Appeal2018-003138
Application 14/219,497
teaches the use of an adjustment image 121 having a focus assist element
120 (predetermined image) to manually focus an image displayed on a
screen but does not teach an adjustment image including the combination of
a first portion that includes a bar graph representing the specified focusing
condition and a second portion that represents the predetermined pattern.
Final Act. 4; Ans. 3, 5; see Williams Figure 2, ,r,r 25, 30. The Examiner
finds Onozawa teaches the use of an adjustment image having a first portion
comprising a bar graph 122 and a second portion that represents the
predetermined pattern 121 to provide a manual focusing function capable of
improving focusing precision of a focus assist image in a digital camera.
Final Act. 4; Ans. 5; see Onozawa Abst., Figure 2, i-f35. The Examiner
determines that it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to
modify the focus assist image found in the combination of Matsumoto,
Eguchi, and Williams in view of Onozawa's teachings. Ans. 5.
Appellant argues that Onozawa does not teach or suggest the detailed
composition of a focus assist image having both a first portion that includes
a bar graph and a second portion that represents a predetermined pattern.
App. Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 4. According to Appellant, focus frame 121 of
Onozawa is not a predetermined pattern of the adjustment image because it
is an image acquired by the digital camera for focusing that is dependent on
the location, direction, zoom level, etc. of the digital camera. Reply Br. 5;
Onozawa ,r,r 38--44. Thus, Appellant contends that Onozawa's focus frame
121 does not serve the same qualitative evaluation purpose as Williams' s
focus assistance element 120. Reply Br. 5; Williams Figure 2, ,r 25.
Appellant's arguments do not point to reversible error in the
determination of obviousness for the reasons the Examiner presents. Ans.
4
Appeal2018-003138
Application 14/219,497
6-7. Appellant's argument that Onozawa's focus frame 121 does not serve
the same qualitative evaluation purpose as Williams' s focus assistance
element is undercut by Appellant's acknowledgement that a user may
qualitatively evaluate a focusing condition based on the sharpness/clarity of
the image inside Onozawa's focus frame 121. Reply Br. 5. That is,
Appellant recognizes that Onozawa's focus frame 121 and Williams's focus
assistance element 120 are both used for qualitative evaluations of images.
Moreover, the claim does not exclude a "predetermined pattern" dependent
on the location, direction, zoom level, etc.
While Appellant argues that Onozawa is directed to digital cameras
and not projectors (App. Br. 9-11; Reply Br. 5, 7), we agree with the
Examiner's determination that the focus mechanisms of a digital camera and
a projection system, while operating in reverse of one another, are otherwise
identical and, thus, Onozawa is reasonably pertinent the problem of
inadequate manual focus common to cameras and projectors (Ans. 3--4).
Thus, Appellant has not distinguished the image inside Onozawa' s focus
frame 121 from the claimed "predetermined pattern."
Appellant argues that the Examiner has not shown a proper rationale
why one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Williams' s focus
assist image 121 to include both Williams's crosshairs 120 and Onozawa's
bar graph 122. Reply Br. 6-7.
In assessing whether a claim to a combination of prior art elements
would have been obvious, the question to be asked is whether the
improvement of the claim is more than the predictable use of prior art
elements or steps according to their established functions. KSR, 550 U.S. at
417. "[T]he analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the
5
Appeal2018-003138
Application 14/219,497
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." Id. at 418.
It is also well settled that a reference stands for all of the specific
teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in the art
would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom. See In re Fritch,
972 F.2d 1260, 1264---65 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826
(CCP A 1968). See also In re Keller, 642 F .2d 413, 425-26 (CCP A 1981)
("The test for obviousness ... is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art."); In re
Merck & Co., 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.").
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument because both Williams
and Onozawa are directed to improving focusing of images using adjustment
images. Williams Figure 2, ,r 30; Onozawa Abst., Figure 2, ,r,r 35, 44.
Williams relies on an adjustment pattern in the form of a focus assistance
element 120 to focus an image while Onozawa relies on a focus assistance
element in the form of a focus frame 121 as well as a distribution graph 122
(bar graph) for the same purpose. Ans. 3; Williams Figure 2; Onozawa
Figure 2, ,r 30. Thus, the use of a combination of a distribution graph with
Williams's focus assistance element, as proposed by the Examiner, would
have been nothing more than "the predictable use of prior art elements
according to their established functions." Ans. 5, 7; KSR, 550 U.S. at 419.
DECISION
6
Appeal2018-003138
Application 14/219,497
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of
claims 1-16 for the reasons the Examiner presents and the reasons we
provide.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136.
AFFIRMED
7