Ex Parte KLEYMAN et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 30, 2018

14733625 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/733,625 06/08/2015 IRINA KLEYMAN
22917 7590 09/04/2018
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC.
IP Law Docketing
500 W. Monroe
43rd Floor
Chicago, IL 60661
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.
PATCM18116-US-PRI 1006
EXAMINER
KALAPODAS, DRAMOS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2487
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/04/2018 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):
USAdocketing@motorolasolutions.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte IRINA KLEYMAN, TYRONE D. BEKIARES,
and HINRICH A. SCHMIDT
Appeal 2018-002828
Application 14/733,625
Technology Center 2400
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., NORMAN H. BEAMER and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
PERCURIAM.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 are appealing the final rejection of claims 1--4, 6-8,
10-12, 14, and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Advisory Action 1. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify Motorola Solutions, Inc. as the real party in interest.
Appeal Brief 3.
Appeal 2018-002828
Application 14/733,625
Introduction
Appellants' invention is directed to a communication system that
"provides for automated detection, and resolution, of focus hunt." Abstract.
Claims 1 and 11 are independent.
Representative Claim ( disputed limitations emphasized)
1. A method for automated detection of focus hunt m
association with a video stream, the method comprising:
determining an occurrence of a plurality of blur metric
transition cycles in association with the video stream, wherein
determining an occurrence of each blur metric transition cycle of
the plurality of blur metric transition cycles comprises:
determining a plurality of blur metric transitions, wherein
determining each blur metric transition of the plurality of blur
metric transitions comprises determining a plurality of blur
metrics in association with a plurality of video frames of the
video stream, wherein a first blur metric of the plurality of blur
metrics is greater than a blur metric threshold and a second blur
metric of the plurality of blur metrics is less than the blur metric
threshold; and
wherein a blur metric transition cycle occurs wherein a
first blur metric transition of the plurality of blur metric
transitions comprises a transition from a blur metric that is less
than the blur metric threshold to a blur metric that is greater than
the blur metric threshold, and a second blur metric transition of
the plurality of blur metric transitions comprises a transition from
a blur metric that is greater than the blur metric threshold to a
blur metric that is less than the blur metric threshold;
determining a number of blur metric transition cycles of
the plurality of blur metric transition cycles that occur within a
predetermined period of time or within a predetermined number
of frames; and
determining that focus hunt has occurred based on the
determined number of blur metric transition cycles.
2
Appeal 2018-002828
Application 14/733,625
Re} ections2 on Appeal
Claims 1, 3, 6-8, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(a)(l)
and I02(a)(2) as being anticipated by Li (US 2013/0182152 Al; July 18,
2013). Final Rejection 6.
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Li in view of Steinberg (US 7,676,108 B2; March 9, 2010). Final
Rejection 14.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Li in view of Page (US 2004/0150717 Al; August 5, 2004). Final
Rejection 16.
Claims 11, 14, and 16-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Page in view of Li. Final Rejection 17.
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Page in view of Li in view of Steinberg. Final Rejection 26.
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Final Rejection (mailed August 11, 2017), the Advisory
Action (mailed September 8, 2017), the Appeal Brief (filed August 28,
2017), and the Answer (mailed November 21, 2017) for the respective
details.
2 The rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) was removed in the
Advisory Action. See Final Rejection 2; Advisory Action 1.
3
Appeal 2018-002828
Application 14/733,625
Appellants argue that "nowhere [in Li] is it taught or otherwise
suggested to use blur metric transition cycles to determine if a focus hunt is
occurring." Appeal Brief 7-8, citing Li ,r 74 (emphasis omitted).
Appellants contend that "simply because focus hunt occurs when executing
Li's technique for depth estimation doesn't mean that Li teaches a technique
to recognize that it is occurring." Appeal Brief 10, emphasis in original.
The Examiner finds Li teaches the claimed "determining that focus
hunt has occurred based on the determined number of blur metric transition
cycles" because:
focus hunt is implicitly associated with the understanding that a
number of blur metric transition cycles have occurred and
consequentially initiates the focus hunt, per cited art, starting and
continuing the iterative process i.e., the number of blur metric
transitions, until focus is achieved.
Final Rejection 8, citing Li ,r 47 ( emphasis omitted).
We do not agree with the Examiner's findings. Anticipation
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 requires that "each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference." In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999)(citation
omitted). The cited portion of Li states that "[i]n autofocus applications, the
lens is traditionally moved to focus at the estimated distance, then the new
depth is estimated in the same manner. The procedure is then preferably
repeated until the iteration number converges to O (in-focus), or alternatively
below some specified threshold." Li ,r 4 7. Li is concerned with auto
focusing and does not mention focus hunt in the cited paragraph. Li only
mentions focus hunting in the description of the related art. See Li ,r 9.
4
Appeal 2018-002828
Application 14/733,625
Therefore, we reverse the Examiner's anticipation rejection of claims
1, 3, 6-8, and 10, and the obviousness rejections of claims 2, 4, 11, 14, and
16-20, as the addition of Steinberg and Page do not cure the deficiencies of
Li.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) and 102(a)(2)
rejections of claims 1, 3, 6-8, and 10.
We reverse the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 2, 4,
11, 14, and 16-20.
REVERSED
5