Ex Parte Knodt et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 25, 2018

14641268 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/641,268 03/06/2015
29989 7590 04/27/2018
HICKMAN PALERMO BECKER BINGHAM LLP
1 ALMADEN BOULEVARD
FLOOR 12
SAN JOSE, CA 95113
KurtKnodt
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.
49986-0827 7090
EXAMINER
BERHAN, AHMED A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2663
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/27/2018 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):
usdocket@h35g.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KURT KNODT and TOMOHITO SHIMIZU
Appeal2017-011192
Application 14/641,268
Technology Center 2600
Before HUNG H. BUI, JON M. JURGOVAN, and MICHAEL M. BARRY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-20, which are all the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify Ricoh Co., Ltd. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2017-011192
Application 14/641,268
Introduction
Appellants describe embodiments of the invention as "relat[ing]
generally to acquiring and managing images." Spec 2 (Field of the
Invention). Appellants explain that as mobile devices take multiple images
over time, "apparent changes in objects captured in a sequence of images
may be attributable to factors other than actual changes in the object." Id.
(Background). Appellants describe aspects of their invention as-
The image acquisition application is configured to receive an
identification of a reference image of one or more objects and
automatically adjust one or more camera settings based upon
the reference image of the one or more objects, wherein the one
or more camera settings after the adjustment are different than
the one or more settings prior to the adjustment.
Spec. 3 (Summary).
Independent claim 1 is representative of the claims on appeal:
1. A mobile device comprising:
a camera;
a display;
one or more processors;
one or more memories communicatively coupled to the
one or more processors; and
an image acquisition application executing on the mobile
device, wherein the image acquisition application is configured
to:
receive an identification of a reference image of
one or more objects,
retrieve, for the reference image, metadata that
specifies a distance at which the reference image of the
one or more objects was acquired,
determine a current distance between the camera
of the mobile device and the one or more objects,
2
Appeal2017-011192
Application 14/641,268
determine a difference between the distance at
which the reference image of the one or more objects was
acquired and the current distance between the camera of
the mobile device and the one or more objects, and
automatically adjust one or more camera settings
for the camera of the mobile device based upon the
difference between the distance at which the reference
image of the one or more objects was acquired and the
current distance between the camera of the mobile device
and the one or more objects, wherein the one or more
camera settings after the adjustment are different than the
one or more settings prior to the adjustment.
App. Br. 13 (Claims App'x) (disputed limitation emphasized).
Rejections & References
Claims 1-3, 7, 9-11, 14, 15, and 17-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Asanuma (US 2013/0141362; June 6, 2013) and
Border (US 2008/0031610 Al; Feb. 7, 2008). Final Act. 3-11.
Claims 4---6, 12, 13, and 20 stand rejected under§ 103 as unpatentable
over Asanuma, Border, and Arai (US 2011/0242282 Al; Oct. 6, 2011).
Final Act. 11-15.
Claims 8 and 16 stand rejected under§ 103 as unpatentable over
Asanuma, Border, and Parulski (US 2013/0027569 Al; Jan. 31, 2013).
Final Act. 15-16.
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites requirements for a mobile device that includes an
image acquisition application "configured to" perform several steps. First, it
"receive[s] an identification of a reference image of one or more objects."
Then, after it retrieves related "metadata that specifies a distance at which
the reference image ... was acquired," it "determine[s] a current distance
3
Appeal2017-011192
Application 14/641,268
between the camera ... and the one or more objects." In other words, claim
1 requires (a) retrieving information that specifies the distance to an object
in an earlier taken image and then (b) determining the current distance of the
camera to the same object. The disputed limitation then requires
determining the difference between those two distances, which claim 1
subsequently uses for automatically adjusting camera settings.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Border teaches all the
functionality that the recited image acquisition application is configured to
perform. Final Act. 4---6 (citing Border ,r,r 57-59, Figs. 1, 4, 5). For teaching
the disputed limitation, the Examiner relies on Border's disclosure of using
distance measurements in its system and method for automatically
calibrating an auto-focus imaging system. See Final Act. 4--6 ( citing Border
,r,r 57-59, Figs. 1, 4, 5); Ans. 17-20 (additionally citing Border ,r 62, Figs.
6-8). Appellants argue the Examiner errs in finding Border teaches or
suggests the disputed limitation. App. Br. 5-8; Reply Br. 1--4. We agree
with Appellants. 2
The Examiner explains that, because Border uses the distance as
measured by its rangefinder to select a lens setting from a lookup table based
on this distance, "the [E]xaminer supposes the selected distance in the
lookup table corresponds to the distance where an image with a lens setting
identical to the reference image was captured, so that selected range distance
potentially represents the distance where the reference image 100 was
captured." Ans. 19. The Examiner further explains that Border's system
2 Because we agree with Appellants on a dispositive issue that is the basis
for reversing the Examiner's rejection of all the independent claims, we do
not address all of Appellants' arguments.
4
Appeal2017-011192
Application 14/641,268
is searching for a minimal distance difference between the
current distance of the object from the camera and the distance
in the lookup table. This implies that the difference between
the current distance and the distance automatically selected by
the controller satisfying the lens setting where the calibration
(reference) image was captured and a distance where the
calibration image was captured in the lookup table (the distance
selected by the controller is in the range of the calibration
image object distance, since the controller is using the lens
setting where the reference image was captured in order to
determine the correlation) [sic]. Thus the difference between
the current distance and the calibration image can be zero or
substantially be zero in order to capture an in-focus image by
the camera automatically (it is a well [sic (recte, well-known)]
fact that in calibration process addition and subtraction are
implicit).
Ans. 19-20.
Appellants argue Border does not teach "searching for a minimal
distance difference between the current distance of the object from the
camera and the distance in the lookup table." Reply Br. 3. We agree with
Appellants. The Examiner's supposition that "the selected distance in the
lookup table corresponds to the distance where an image with a lens setting
identical to the reference image was captured" (Ans. 18) mischaracterizes
how the system of Border operates. Distance is used to select information
from the tables of Border, and a lens setting is selected-there is no
"selected distance in the lookup table." See Border ,r,r 60-65, Figs. 6-8.
We agree with Appellants that the functionality recited for the image
acquisition application in claim 1 differs from the calibration technique
disclosed in Border. See App. Br. 6-7. Specifically, we agree Border's
"calibration distance for the calibration image 100 is never used for
subsequent images, and is certainly never compared to the current capture
5
Appeal2017-011192
Application 14/641,268
distance for subsequent images." Id. at 7. The Examiner responds that "the
features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a current capture distance for a
subsequent image[]) are not recited." Ans. 21. Although we agree claim 1
does not literally recite "subsequent image," Appellants accurately
characterize claim 1 's recited requirements related to "determin[ing] a
current distance between the camera ... and the one or more objects" and
the disputed limitation's requirement for comparing that current distance
(i.e., the distance for a "subsequent image") with the retrieved distance
information to the same one or more objects for the reference image.
On the record before us, therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). For the same reasons we do not sustain
the rejection of independent claims 9 and 17, which also include the disputed
limitation. We also, accordingly, do not sustain the rejections of dependent
claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of
claims 1-2 0.
REVERSED
6