Ex Parte Kawamura

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 9, 2017

13517825 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 9, 2017)

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.
13/517,825 06/14/2012 Ayumu Kawamura B984-172 (25816.187) 6583
26272 7590 02/13/2017
PATENT DOCKET CLERK
COWAN, LIEBOWITZ & LATMAN, P.C.
114 WEST 47th STREET
21st FLOOR
NEW YORK, NY 10036
EXAMINER
WU, ZHENZHEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2661
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/13/2017 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):
AXC@CLL.COM
DXO@CLL.COM
RAM@CLL.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AYUMU KAWAMURA
Appeal 2016-005433
Application 13/517,825
Technology Center 2600
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, DAVID J. CUTITTAII, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 1—15, which constitute all of the claims pending in this
application. App. Br. I.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
reverse.
1 Rather than repeat the Examiner’s positions and Appellant’s arguments in
their entirety, we refer to the following documents for their respective
details: the Non-Final Action mailed April 8, 2015 (“Non-Final Act.”); the
Appeal Brief filed September 3, 2015 (“App. Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer
Appeal 2016-005433
Application 13/517,825
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant describes the present invention as follows:
An image pickup apparatus is provided that is capable of
avoiding an image pickup device and control system devices
thereof from being affected by heat generated by a wireless
transmitter-receiver unit, whereby the control system devices can
stably be operated, while avoiding the quality of photographed
image from being deteriorated. In the image pickup apparatus, a
power unit has an upper limit of guaranteed temperature higher
than that of the image pickup device and higher than those of an
image processing unit and a control unit which are the control
system devices, and is mounted on a mounting surface of a board
together with the image processing unit and the control unit. A
wireless transmitter-receiver unit is disposed parallel to and
facing the mounting surface of the board so as to cover the power
unit mounted on the board.
Abstract.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the appealed
claims:
1. An image pickup apparatus comprising:
an image pickup device configured to photoelectrically
convert an object image into image signals;
a lens unit configured to form the object image on the
image pickup device;
an image processing unit configured to perform image
processing on the image signals output from the image pickup
device;
a control unit configured to control the image pickup
device and the image processing unit;
a converting unit configured to convert electric power
supplied from a battery and supply converted electric power to
mailed February 25, 2016 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief filed April 25, 2016
(“Reply Br”).
2
Appeal 2016-005433
Application 13/517,825
the image pickup device, the image processing unit, and the
control unit;
a first board on which the image processing unit, the
control unit and the converting unit are mounted; and
a wireless transmitting unit configured to wirelessly
transmit data,
wherein the image pickup device is mounted on the lens
unit via a second board,
wherein the first board is disposed in such a manner that
the converting unit mounted on the first board does not overlap
the image pickup device and the lens unit,
wherein the converting unit has heat resistance higher than
any one of the image pickup device, the image processing unit,
and the control unit, and
wherein the wireless transmitting unit is disposed in such
a manner that a distance between the wireless transmitting unit
and the converting unit is shorter than any one of a distance
between the wireless transmitting unit and the image pickup
device, a distance between the wireless transmitting unit and the
image processing unit, and a distance between the wireless
transmitting unit and the control unit.
Claims 1—3, 6—8, and 11—13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Ishikuro et al. (US 2007/0285517 Al; published December
13, 2007) (“Ishikuro”), Wang (US 2010/0271468 Al; published Oct. 28,
2010), and Ozeki (US 2011/0099302 Al; published Apr. 28, 2011).
Claims 4, 5, 9, 10, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Ishikuro, Wang, Ozeki, and Watanabe et al.
(US 2002/0109733A1; published Aug. 15, 2002) (“Watanabe”).
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
3
Appeal 2016-005433
Application 13/517,825
FINDINGS AND CONTENTIONS
The Examiner finds that Ishikuro discloses all of the limitation of
independent claim 1 except for
a converting unit configured to convert electric power supplied
from a battery and supply converted electric power to the image
pickup device, the image processing unit, and the control unit;
wherein the converting unit has heat resistance higher than any
one of the image pickup device, the image processing unit, and
the control unit.
Non-Final Act. 4—6. The Answer clarifies that the Examiner finds Ishikuro
teaches a converter, and relies upon “Ozeki only to teach the functionality of
the DC/DC converter. According to the Examiner, the arrangement of the
DC/DC converter is disclosed in Ishikuro, instead of Ozeki.” Ans. 19 (citing
Ishikuro 139); see also Non-Final Act. 6 (citing Ozeki 125). The Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious “to modify Ishikuro with the
teaching of Ozeki to incorporate a converting unit to convert electric power
supplied from a battery, so as to allow the electric power to be converted
into the desired voltage.” Non-Final Act. 6.
The Examiner further finds that the combination of Ishikuro and
Ozeki fails to disclose a wireless transmitting unit, much less such a unit that
is disposed to have the recited relative distances to the image pickup device,
the image processing, and the control unit. Id. at 6—7. The Examiner finds
that Wang teaches a wireless transmitting unit (id. at 7 (citing Wang || 36,
39; id. FIGs. 4, 5)) and that motivation existed to incorporate Wang’s
wireless transmitting unit into the combination of Ishikuro and Ozeki (id. at
7—8). The Examiner further concludes that “placing the transmitter-receiver
closer to the power [converting] unit would be merely a design choice so as
to implement the required camera system.” Id. at 8.
4
Appeal 2016-005433
Application 13/517,825
Appellant asserts, among other arguments, that Wang’s Figures 4 and
5 are schematic representations that do not suggest the actual arrangement of
the components of the capsule camera. App. Br. 21. Appellant further
asserts that
Wang only indicates that an A/D converter can be inside the
image sensor or between the image sensor (16) and the rest of the
system . . ., but does not at all specify the relative positioning or
arrangement of the wireless communication module with respect
to the other components of the camera.
Id.
ANALYSIS
We are unconvinced that Wang’s Figures 4 and 5 depict actual spatial
arrangements of the capsule camera’s structural components—that the
figures are anything more than schematic representations. “[I]t is well
established that patent drawings do not define the precise proportions of the
elements and may not be relied on to show particular sizes if the
specification is completely silent on the issue.” Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc.
v. Avia Grp. Int’l, Inc., 222 F.3d 951, 956 (Fed. Cir. 2000); In re Wright,
569 F.2d 1124, 1127 (CCPA 1977) (“Absent any written description in the
specification of quantitative values, arguments based on measurement of a
drawing are of little value.”); see also MPEP § 2125(11).
However, even if we were to assume, solely for the sake of argument,
that Wang does depict structural spatial arrangements, that would not end
the inquiry. It is clear that a wireless transmitting unit must not block a
visual path between a lens unit and an associated image pickup device. But
the Examiner has not provided sufficient evidence of why it would have
been obvious to incorporate Wang’s wireless communication module into
5
Appeal 2016-005433
Application 13/517,825
Ishikuro’s hand-held camera, particularly in a manner that would satisfy the
specified distance relationships between the wireless communication unit
and the four other recited components.
Wang is directed to a capsule camera that is small enough to be
digested for diagnostic imaging inside the human body. Wang 12. As such,
the size of Wang’s imaging device would give rise to severe spatial
constraints that would not be relevant to Ishikuro’s hand-held video camera.
Furthermore, we disagree with the Examiner’s conclusion that
“placing the transmitter-receiver closer to the power unit would [have been]
merely a design choice so as to implement the required camera system.”
Non-Final Act. 8. Appellant’s Specification reasonably indicates that the
relative placement of the recited components is not a mere matter of
aesthetic design or ornamentation having no mechanical function. See In re
Seid, 161 F.2d. 229, 231 (CCPA 1947) (wherein the predecessor to our
reviewing court explained that structural differences will not patentably
distinguish a claimed invention if those differences relate to ornamentation
only and have no mechanical function whatsoever); see also Manual of
Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 2144.04.1, 9th ed., Rev. 07.2015,
Nov. 2015 (“AESTHETIC DESIGN CHANGES”).
Rather, Appellant’s Specification expressly indicates that the
components’ relative placement, in fact, serves a function:
With this invention, it is possible to avoid the image pickup
device and control system devices of the image pickup apparatus
from being affected by the heat generated by the wireless
transmitter-receiver unit of the image pickup apparatus, whereby
the control system devices can stably be operated, while avoiding
the quality of photographed image from being deteriorated.
Spec. 17.
6
Appeal 2016-005433
Application 13/517,825
For at least the foregoing reasons, Appellant has persuaded us of error
in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claims 1, 6, and 11,
each of which specifies the distance relationship between the wireless
transmitting unit and various other components within the image pickup
apparatus. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these
claims, or of claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 12, and 13, which depend from these claims.
With respect to the remaining rejection of dependent claims 4, 5, 9,
10, 14, and 15, the additional reliance on Watanabe does not cure the
deficiency of the obviousness rejection explained above. See Non-Final Act.
16—18 (indicating that Watanabe is relied upon only for the additional
limitations of the cited dependent claims).
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—15 is reversed.
REVERSED
7