Ex Parte Kudo et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 29, 201613554865 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/554,865 07/20/2012 Keisuke Kudo 34904 7590 08/31/2016 CANON USA INC INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DIVISION 15975 ALTON PARKWAY IRVINE, CA 92618-3731 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. 10112324WOUS01 4002 EXAMINER HOGUE, DENNIS A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2664 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/31/2016 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): mklein@cusa.canon.com skalminov@cusa.canon.com IPDocketing@cusa.canon.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KEISUKE KUDO and SOGO KUROIW A Appeal2015-001994 Application 13/554,865 1 Technology Center 2600 Before LARRY J. HUME, JOHN D. HAMANN, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. THE CLAIMED INVENTION Appellants' claimed invention relates to "an image pickup device that has a function for correcting focusing information of autofocus means employing a phase difference system, such as a single-lens reflex camera." 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Canon Kabushiki Kaisha. App. Br. 3. Appeal2015-001994 Application 13/554,865 See Spec. i11. Of the claims on appeal, claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter of the appeal and is reproduced below. 1. An image pickup device that includes first autofocus means, which obtains first focusing information using a phase difference system, and second autofocus means, which obtains second focusing information using a contrast system, the image pickup device being capable of being set to a correction mode for the first focusing information, the image pickup device compnsmg: display control means that controls display means that is capable of displaying a live view in which a photographed image is displayed; and control means that drives and controls a focus lens in the correction mode such that the focus lens enters a focused state using the second focusing information or corrected first focusing information, which is first focusing information that has been corrected with a correction value for the first focusing information, the correction value being calculated so as to correspond to a difference between the first focusing information and the second focusing information, wherein the control means is configured to allow the display control means to restart displaying the live view on the display means after the focus lens enters the focused state using the second focusing information, the displaying of the live view having been interrupted in the correction mode. REJECTIONS ON APPEAL (1) The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, and 7-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Matsuda (US 2003/0189662 Al; Oct. 9, 2003) and Aoyama (US 2009/0185069 Al; July 23, 2009). (2) The Examiner rejected claims 3, 4, 10, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Matsuda, Aoyama, Sakaguchi (US 2008/0199168 Al; Aug. 21, 2008), and Hazeghi, AF 2 Appeal2015-001994 Application 13/554,865 microadjustment tricks, post #1, www.birdphotograghers.net, (Feb. 25, 2010). (3) The Examiner rejected claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Matsuda, Aoyama, and Sakaguchi. (4) The Examiner rejected claims 6, 12, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Matsuda, Aoyama, Sakaguchi, and Hazeghi. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' contentions that the Examiner erred. In reaching our decision, we consider all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellants. We disagree with Appellants' arguments, and we incorporate herein and adopt as our own the findings, conclusions, and reasons set forth by the Examiner in (1) the February 28, 2014 Final Office Action (Final Act. 2-18) and (2) the September 17, 2014 Examiner's Answer (Ans. 2-29). We highlight and address, however, specific findings and arguments below for emphasis. (1) Aoyama 's teachings Appellants argue Aoyama does not teach or suggest "restart[ing] displaying the live view on the display means after the focus lens enters the focused state using the second focusing information, the displaying of the live view having been interrupted in the correction mode," as recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 11. Specifically, Appellants argue "Aoyama requires that the live view is always displayed and never interrupted if the 3 Appeal2015-001994 Application 13/554,865 [(autofocus)] AF system is the contrast system." Id. (citing Aoyama Figs. 6A (step S1016), 6B (step S1055); i-f 82). Appellants contend Aoyama confirms that this is a requirement: "where the AF system during the L V [live view] is the contrast system, ifthe AF button 113 is operated (turned ON) in the live view state, the microcomputer 402 performs the AF operation while keeping the live view display state." App. Br. 11 (citing Aoyama i-f 88). Appellants also argue, besides the contrast autofocus system, Aoyama also teaches a second independent autofocus system - a phase difference system ("PDS"). Id. (citing Aoyama FIG. 6B, i-f 73). Appellants then contend it is the PDS - when the autofocus camera button is on - that interrupts the live view display and restarts it after the autofocus button is turned off. See Aoyama i-f 81, Fig. 6B. The Examiner finds Aoyama teaches the disputed limitation. Ans. 23-24; Final Act. 7 (citing Aoyama Fig. 2, i-fi-125-26, 34). Specifically, the Examiner finds Aoyama teaches or suggests "that the electronic viewfinder can be operated at all times except when phase difference detection is performed (because the mirror assembly must be inserted)," rather than "if contrast focus detection is performed, then the display of a live view is required," and can never be interrupted, as Appellants contend. Ans. 23-24 (citing Aoyama Fig. 6B); Final Act. 7 (citing Aoyama Fig. 2, i-fi-125-26, 34). We agree with the Examiner and find Aoyama teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. For example, we agree that Aoyama teaches the electronic viewfinder can have a live view, interrupted by the phase detection autofocus, that then returns to the live view after that autofocus process is completed. See Aoyama Figs. 6B, 2, i-fi-125-26, 34. We also agree with the Examiner that Aoyama's teachings do not require that the live view 4 Appeal2015-001994 Application 13/554,865 is always displayed and never interrupted if using the contrast autofocus feature. See id. (2) Combining Matsuda and Aoyama Appellants argue the combined teachings of Matsuda and Aoyama would not have suggested the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art, including because (i) Aoyama requires that the live view is always active and is never interrupted while the contrast system performs autofocus, (ii) Aoyama teaches away from having a live view interrupted while using the contrast system, and (iii) the teachings of Matsuda and Aoyama would not enable those skilled in the art to make the claimed invention. See App. Br. 12-15 (citing Aoyama i-fi-18-10, Fig. 6B). Appellants also argue the Examiner fails to provide the necessary reasoning to combine the teachings of Matsuda and Aoyama. App. Br. 15. As above, the Examiner finds Aoyama teaches or suggests the electronic viewfinder can be operated at all times except when phase difference detection is performed, but does not require that the live view is never interrupted if contrast focus detection is performed. Ans. 25 (citing Aoyama Fig. 6B); see also supra. The Examiner also finds Aoyama's teachings do not contradict Matsuda or the claimed invention, and Aoyama does not teach away from interrupting and restarting the live display for contrast autofocus. Ans. 25-26. The Examiner further finds one of ordinary skill in the art would find the relevant modifications trivial, and such "would be well within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the imaging arts." Ans. 27. The Examiner also finds: [I]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the LCD and live view of Aoyama with the calibration mode of Matsuda so that the user 5 Appeal2015-001994 Application 13/554,865 could operate the camera while looking at the LCD. This would increase the utility and convenience of the user .... Final Act. 8. We agree with the Examiner's findings and adopt them as our own. As above, we find Aoyama's teachings do not require that the live view is always displayed and never interrupted if using the contrast autofocus feature. See Aoyama Figs. 6B, 2, i-fi-125-26, 34. Furthermore, Appellants have not established that Aoyama teaches away from the claimed invention and have not demonstrated that "a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant." In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). We also agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found the disputed limitation obvious in light of Aoyama's and Matsuda's combined teachings. See Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("Where the prior art contains 'apparently conflicting' teachings ... each reference must be considered 'for its power to suggest solutions to an artisan of ordinary skill ... consider[ing] the degree to which one reference might accurately discredit another."') citing In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Additionally, we find Appellants' argument that the teachings of Matsuda and Aoyama would not enable those skilled in the art to make the claimed invention unpersuasive. See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) ("[T]he [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of 6 Appeal2015-001994 Application 13/554,865 ordinary skill in the art would employ."); see also KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 ("If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability."). In addition, we are not persuaded that combining Matsuda and Aoyama in the manner proffered by the Examiner is "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art." See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418). We also find the Examiner provides "articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." In re Kahn, 441F.3d977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The Examiner reasons a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Matsuda and Aoyama so that the user could operate the camera while looking at the LCD. Final Act. 8; see also KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 ("[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill."); In re Linter, 458 F.2d 1013, 1016 (CCPA 1972) (finding it is not necessary for the prior art to serve the same purpose as that disclosed in Appellants' Specification in order to support the conclusion that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious). We also find Appellants' arguments that combining the teachings of Matsuda and Aoyama (i) would change the principle of operation of Matsuda and (ii) would render Matsuda inoperable for its intended purpose, to be unpersuasive because both arguments are premised on Aoyama requiring a live view that is never interrupted and is always active for a contrast autofocus system. See App. Br. 15-16; Reply Br. 7. As discussed 7 Appeal2015-001994 Application 13/554,865 above, we find that this premise is incorrect. See Aoyama Figs. 6B, 2, iii! 25-26, 34. Lastly, we find Appellants' arguments that the Examiner improperly relies on hindsight and Official Notice to be unsupported and untethered to the claim language. CONCLUSION Based on our findings above, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, and claim 7 which recites commensurate limitations and to which our above reasoning also applies. We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2-6 and 8-13 for which Appellants did not provide separate arguments for patentability. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-13. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation