Ex Parte Kohler et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 26, 201311054210 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte TIMOTHY L. KOHLER, STEVEN D. STOECKER, JEFFREY M. DICARLO, LES GEHMAN, GARY J. DISPOTO, ERIC MONTGOMERY, CASEY L. MILLER ____________________ Appeal 2012-002064 Application 11/054,210 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before THU A. DANG, JAMES R. HUGHES, and GREGORY J. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges. DANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-002064 Application 11/054,210 2 I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1, 4-8, 15-30, and 48-58 (App. Br. 1). Claims 3, 9-14, and 31-47 have been canceled (id.). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. A. INVENTION Appellants’ invention is directed to an imaging device analysis system and method that includes a light source which outputs light of varying wavelength and intensity and processing circuitry for controlling the light source and processing image data to determine optical characteristics of an image device, such as the responsivity and transduction function of at least one imaging component of the imaging device (Abstract; Spec. ¶ [0079]). B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM Claim 1 is exemplary: 1. An imaging device analysis system comprising: a light source configured to output light for use in analyzing at least one imaging component comprising a lens of an imaging device configured to generate images responsive to received light, wherein the light source is configured to output first light having a first wavelength characteristic at a first moment in time and output second light having a second wavelength characteristic different from the first wavelength characteristic at a second moment in time, and the light source outputs the second light as a plurality of light beams directed along different respective spatially separated beam paths; and Appeal 2012-002064 Application 11/054,210 3 processing circuitry coupled with the light source and configured to control the light source to optically communicate the light to the imaging device and to lock a focus of the lens of the imaging device using the light of the first wavelength characteristic at the first moment in time, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to perform operations comprising accessing image data generated by the imaging device responsive to the reception, by the imaging device, of the light from the light source having the second wavelength characteristic at the second moment in time with the focus of the lens locked, identifying in the image data areas corresponding to locations of an image sensor of the imaging device that received light of second wavelength characteristic, and determining whether a chromatic aberration is present within the lens based on an analysis of the identified areas. C. REJECTIONS The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Ide US 6,363,220 BI Mar. 26, 2002 Foote US 7,015,954 Bl Mar. 21, 2006 (filed Aug. 09, 1999) Gustavsson US 7,158,170 B2 Jan. 02, 2007 (filed May 08, 2003) Enomoto US 7,245,319 Bl Jul. 17, 2007 (filed Jun. 11, 1999) Claims 1, 4-8, 15-28, and 48-58 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gustavsson in view of Enomoto. Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gustavsson in view of Enomoto and Ide. Claims 29 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gustavsson in view of Enomoto and Foote. Appeal 2012-002064 Application 11/054,210 4 II. ISSUES The dispositive issues before us are whether the Examiner has erred in determining that the combination of Gustavsson and Enomoto teaches or would have suggested: 1. a “light source” that “outputs the second light as a plurality of light beams directed along different respective spatially separated beam paths” and a “processing circuitry” that is “configured to perform operations comprising accessing image data generated by the imaging device responsive to the reception, … identifying in the image data areas corresponding to locations of an image sensor of the imaging device that received light of second wavelength characteristic, and determining whether a chromatic aberration is present within the lens based on an analysis of the identified areas” (claim 1, emphasis added); 2. “determining whether a chromatic aberration of the lens of the imaging device is present based on an analysis of the identified areas” (claim 15, emphasis added). III. FINDINGS OF FACT The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of the evidence. Gustavsson 1. Gustavsson discloses a camera having an image processor that determines the Bayer pattern of image locations and distribution using a diffuser D1 and a single white light source 20 comprising arrays of Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) having different wavelengths, such as blue (B), white (W), red (R), and infrared (IR); wherein, the light beams are arranged Appeal 2012-002064 Application 11/054,210 5 in a pattern to uniformly illuminate the diffuser 21 (col. 4, ll. 18-21 and col. 5, ll. 13-24). Enomoto 2. Enomoto discloses a digital camera 10 having data processing unit 16 that includes a characteristic correction unit 36 to correct the chromatic aberration of magnification and the distortion aberration originating in the lens (Figs. 1 and 2; col. 4, ll. 1-33). 3. The characteristic correction unit 36 corrects both the chromatic aberration of magnification and the distortion aberration; wherein, data regarding these types of aberrations are stored as lens characteristics in memory 20 (Figs. 1 and 2; col. 8, ll. 24-32). IV. ANALYSIS Claims 1, 4-8, 25-28, 48, and 55-58 Appellants contend that although Enomoto discloses “the digital camera pre-stores lens characteristics that define the coordinate transformations needed to correct the predetermined chromatic aberration of the lens,” Enomoto does not “determine whether a chromatic aberration of the lens of the imaging device is present based on an analysis of such identified areas” (App. Br. 7). Appellants argue that “Enomoto does not identify areas of the image data corresponding to locations of an image sensor of the imaging device that received a plurality of light beams directed along different respective spatially separated beam paths” (id.). Appellants contend further that “there is no apparent need for such circuitry in Enomoto’s digital camera … because lens aberrations already are corrected based on the pre-stored lens characteristics” (App. Br. 8). Appeal 2012-002064 Application 11/054,210 6 However, the Examiner finds that Enomoto teaches that “within the captured image, … different sizes of shaded areas having chromatic aberration [are identified] wherein the pixels intensity of image peripheral is lower than the center area” and “[t]he characteristics of chromatic aberration are stored in the lens characteristics and the aberrations may be corrected by use of the lens characteristics and the image position” (Ans. 11). We give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Claim 1 does not place any limitation on what “determining whether a chromatic aberration is present” means, includes, or represents. Further, claim 1 merely requires that the processing circuitry is “configured to perform operations” including accessing data, identifying data within this accessed data, and determining whether a chromatic aberration is present in the lens relative to the identified data. We find such “configured to” language to merely represent a statement of intended function of the processing circuitry. An intended function will not limit the scope of the claim because it merely defines a context in which the invention operates. Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Thus, we conclude that claim 1 merely requires that the processing circuitry is capable of performing such intended functions. Thus, we give “processing circuitry is further configured to perform operations comprising accessing image data … identifying in the image data areas corresponding to locations of an image sensor of the imaging device that received light of second wavelength characteristic, and determining whether a chromatic aberration is present within the lens based on an Appeal 2012-002064 Application 11/054,210 7 analysis of the identified areas” its broadest reasonable interpretation as a processing circuitry that is capable of accessing image data, identifying data associated with the light source at a particular wavelength, and determining whether a chromatic aberration is present based on the identified data, as consistent with the Specification and as specifically defined in claim 1. Gustavsson discloses a camera having an image processor that determines the Bayer pattern of the image locations using a single white light source comprising arrays of LEDs with different wavelengths arranged in a pattern to uniformly illuminate a diffuser (FF 1). We find that a light source having arrays of LEDs arranged in a pattern to uniformly illuminate a diffuser comprises a plurality of light beams directed along different respective spatially separated beam paths. That is, we find that Gustavsson’s light source and diffuser comprise a “light source [that] outputs the second light as a plurality of light beams directed along different respective spatially separated beam paths” (claim 1). We also find that the image processor is capable of accessing image data and identifying data associated with the light source at a second wavelength. In particular, we find that Gustavsson’s image processor comprises “processing circuitry [which] is further configured to perform operations comprising accessing image data generated by the imaging device responsive to the reception, by the imaging device, of the light from the light source having the second wavelength characteristic at the second moment in time with the focus of the lens locked, identifying in the image data areas corresponding to locations of an image sensor of the imaging device that received light of second wavelength characteristic” (claim 1). Appeal 2012-002064 Application 11/054,210 8 In addition, Enomoto discloses a digital camera having a data processing unit including a characteristic correction unit which corrects chromatic aberration of magnification and distortion aberration of a lens which are previously stored as lens characteristics in memory (FF 2 and 3). We find that the data processing unit is capable of accessing image data and determining whether a chromatic aberration is present based on identified data (stored in memory). In view of our claim construction above, we find that the combination of Gustavsson and Enomoto at least suggests the limitations of claim 1. We also agree with the Examiner’s explicit motivation that combining the references would be obvious since “modification [of Gustavsson’s camera] would greatly enhance the quality of captured images since the lens-caused chromatic aberration can easily be identified, determined, and corrected” (Ans. 11). The Supreme Court has stated that “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Thus, we find no error in the Examiner’s finding that the combination of Gustavsson’s test system for camera modules (including an image processor, light source, and diffuser) that accesses image data and identifies data associated with a light beam of differing wavelengths with the lens aberration determination feature, as disclosed in Enomoto, produces a processing unit that is capable of accessing image data, identifying data associated with a light source at any wavelength, and determining the lens aberration from the data which would be obvious (Ans. 11; FF 1-3). Appeal 2012-002064 Application 11/054,210 9 Accordingly, we find that the Examiner has not erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Gustavsson in view of Enomoto. Further, independent claim 25 having similar claim language and claims 4-8, 26-28, 48, and 55-58 (depending from claims 1 and 25), which have not been argued separately, fall with claim 1. Claims 15-24 and 49-54 As to claim 15, Appellants contend that “Gustavsson in view of Enomoto does not disclose or suggest … ‘determining whether a chromatic aberration of the lens of the imaging device is present based on an analysis of the identified areas’” (App. Br. 9). After reviewing the record on appeal, we agree with Appellants. Though we agree with the Examiner that Enomoto discloses a digital camera having the lens characteristics including chromatic aberration of magnification and the distortion aberration (FF 2), we cannot find any suggestion in the Examiner’s recited portion of Gustavsson and Enomoto of the positively recited step of “determining whether a chromatic aberration of the lens of the imaging device is present based on an analysis of the identified areas [of the image data]” as required by claim 15 (emphasis, added). That is, since the lens aberration data is stored in Enomoto as opposed to being determined by the image processor using data relating to the light source, the combined teachings of Gustavsson and Enomoto do not disclose “determining whether a chromatic aberration of the lens of the imaging device is present based on an analysis of the identified areas” (claim 15) Accordingly, we find that Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Gustavsson in Appeal 2012-002064 Application 11/054,210 10 view of Enomoto. Further, independent claim 20 having similar claim language and claims 16-19, 21-24, and 49-54 (depending from claims 15 and 20), which have not been argued separately, stand with claim 15. Claims 2, 29, and 30 Appellants argue that claims 2, 29, and 30 are patentable over the cited prior art for the same reasons asserted with respect to claims 1 and 25 (App. Br. 13). As noted supra, however, we find that the combined teaching of Gustavsson and Enomoto at least suggests all the features of claims 1 and 25. We therefore affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Gustavsson and Enomoto in further view of Ide and of claims 29 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Gustavsson and Enomoto in further view of Foote. V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-8, 25-30, 48, and 55-58 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed, and the Examiner’s rejection of claims 15-24 and 49-54 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART peb Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation