Ex Parte Kelley et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 24, 2017

13732577 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 24, 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.
13/732,577 01/02/2013 John F. Kelley END920120188US1 8382
11445 7590 02/28/2017
IBM Corporation - Endicott Drafting Center
1701 North Street
Building 256-3
Endicott, NY 13760
EXAMINER
BEUTEL, WILLIAM A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2616
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/28/2017 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):
endiplaw@us.ibm.com
edciplaw@us.ibm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN F. KELLEY and TODD SEAGER
Appeal 2016-007824
Application 13/732,577
Technology Center 2600
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, CATHERINE SHIANG, and JOHN D.
HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 3, 5—7, 9, 11—13, 15, 17, and 18, which are all the
claims pending and rejected in the application. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
According to the Specification, the present invention relates to
photography. See generally Spec. 1. Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method for visualizing depth of field of a digital image,
the method comprising the steps of:
a computing device determining a distance value for each
respective pixel of a plurality of pixels of a digital image based
Appeal 2016-007824
Application 13/732,577
on a distance between subject matter depicted in the respective
pixel and an imaging device integrated with the computing
device;
the computing device determining a depth of field of the
digital image;
the computing device comparing the depth of field of the
digital image to the distance value for each respective pixel to
determine a first set of pixels of the plurality of pixels having
distance values outside the depth of field and a second set of
pixels of the plurality of pixels having distance values inside the
depth of field; and
the computer device indicating the first set of pixels in a
user interface of the imaging device, wherein the first set of
pixels are indicated by a removable first mask in the user
interface, and wherein the removable first mask is over the first
set of pixels of the digital image.
References and Rejections1
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, and 17 are rejected under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Voss (US 2013/0094753 Al;
publ. Apr. 18, 2013), Marks (US 2005/0157204 Al; publ. July 21, 2005),
and Forman (US 6,603,485 B2; iss. Aug. 5, 2003).
Claims 6, 12, and 18 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Voss, Marks, Forman, and Dedeoglu (US
2013/0101206 Al; publ. Apr. 25, 2013).
ANALYSIS
We disagree with Appellants’ arguments, and agree with and adopt
the Examiner’s findings and conclusions in (i) the action from which this
1 The Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 3, 9, and 15 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Ans. 33.
2
Appeal 2016-007824
Application 13/732,577
appeal is taken and (ii) the Answer, to the extent they are consistent with our
analysis below.
On this record, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1.
Appellants contend Forman does not teach
the computing device indicating the first set of pixels in a
user interface of the imaging device, wherein the first set ofpixels
are indicated by a removable first mask in the user interface, and
wherein the removable first mask is over the first set of pixels of
the digital image,
as recited in claim 1 (emphasis added). See Br. 5—9. In particular,
Appellants assert:
[I]n claim 1, “the first set of pixels are indicated by a removable
first mask in the user interface” where “a[the] [sic] first set of
pixels of the plurality of pixels having distance values outside
the depth of field” ... In other words, the “a removable first
mask” indicates “a first set of pixels” that are related to a “depth
of field” of “the digital image.” The “depth of field” is calculated
using “aperture diameter, focal length of optical lens 20, and the
distance between the subject at a focus point to an autofocus
pixel sensor associated with the focus point by using the image
capture program’s autofocus capabilities.” Therefore, the
“distance values” are “a distance between subject matter
depicted in the respective pixel and an imaging device
integrated with the computer device.”
The “distance values” are not based on “the user will
recognize the screen region of interest and moves the cursor,”
as taught by Forman . . . “process 300 automatically implements
cursor tracking” “by tracking such as in typing from a keyboard
or by use of a mouse or via an immediate jump such as is possible
with eye-tracking devices[.]” As discussed previously, Forman’s
mask then relates to “the cursor area 203” and is not related to “a
distance between subject matter depicted in the respective pixel
and an imaging device integrated with the computer device.” . .
. Forman’s mask “implements a continuous calculation for the
mask area 201.” In contradistinction, in claim 1, “a first set of
pixels of the plurality of pixels having distance values outside the
3
Appeal 2016-007824
Application 13/732,577
depth of field” are “determined” for “the digital image” and the
“removable first mask is over the first set of pixels of the digital
image” and is not “a continuous calculation” based on “cursor
tracking.”
Br. 8-9.
Appellants have not persuaded us of error. Because the Examiner
relies on the combination of Voss, Marks, and Forman to teach the disputed
claim limitation, Appellants cannot establish nonobviousness by attacking
Forman individually. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097
(Fed. Cir. 1986). Further, Appellants’ arguments are not directed toward the
Examiner’s specific mappings.
The Examiner finds—and Appellants do not dispute—Voss teaches “a
first set of pixels.” See Final Act. 4; Ans. 34. Therefore, Forman does not
need to teach “the first set of pixels” separately. Further, the Examiner
finds—and Appellants do not dispute—Forman teaches a set of pixels “are
indicated by a removable first mask.” See Final Act. 3—6; Ans. 35—37.
Because Appellants do not contend it is improper to apply Forman’s
technique in the Voss method, the Examiner correctly determines Voss, and
Forman collectively teach “the first set of pixels are indicated by a
removable first mask,” as recited in claim 1.
In addition, the Examiner finds—and Appellants do not dispute—
Voss and Marks collectively teach
determining a distance value for each respective pixel of a
plurality of pixels of a digital image based on a distance between
subject matter depicted in the respective pixel and an imaging
device integrated with the computing device ... a first set of
pixels of the plurality of pixels having distance values outside the
depth of field,
4
Appeal 2016-007824
Application 13/732,577
as recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 3—6; Ans. 34—35. Therefore,
Forman does not need to teach such claim elements separately, as
Appellants argue (Br. 8).
Because Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and claims 7 and 13 for similar
reasons.
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of corresponding dependent
claims 3, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 15, 17, and 18, as Appellants do not advance
separate substantive arguments for those claims.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 5—7, 9, 11—
13, 15, 17, and 18.
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).
AFFIRMED
5