Ex Parte Lim et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 27, 2012

10419984 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 27, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
10/419,984 04/22/2003 Chae-Whan Lim 45054 1906
1609 7590 12/27/2012
ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, L.L.P.
1300 19TH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 600
WASHINGTON,, DC 20036
EXAMINER
PASIEWICZ, DANIEL M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2661
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/27/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte CHAE-WHAN LIM and SANG HYUN LEE
____________________

Appeal 2011-001808
Application 10/419,984
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 2011-001808
Application 10/419,984

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-15 and 17 (App. Br. 4). Claim 16 has been canceled (id.). We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

A. INVENTION
Appellants’ invention is directed to a mobile communication terminal
having a camera that generates image data of a captured still image which is
processed by a display data processor and provided to a thumbnail generator
that generates a thumbnail picture which may be displayed to conveniently
identify the still image (Abstract; Spec. 2:1-3:8).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A device for displaying an image in a mobile
communication terminal, comprising:

a camera for capturing an object’s image and generating
image data;

a display data processor for processing the image data
generated by the camera based on a display standard;

an image codec for compressing the image data
processed by the display data processor and generating image
data of at least one still picture in a still-picture capture mode;

a thumbnail generator for generating image data of at
least one thumbnail picture of a set size from the image data
processed by the display data processor in the still-picture
capture mode, including a thumbnail resizer for cropping lines
Appeal 2011-001808
Application 10/419,984

3
and pixels from the edges of the compressed image data and a
sub-sampler for generating a thumbnail image according to a
pull down scheme;

a user data generator for generating user data according
to a display mode;

a display unit for displaying the image data on a first
display area and displaying the user data on a second display
area; and

a controller for cutting off a path of the image data by
controlling the display data processor in the still-picture capture
mode, driving the image codec and the thumbnail generator
such that the image data displayed on the first display area can
be compressed, simultaneously generating image data of at least
one still picture and image data of at least one thumbnail picture
of a set size when a still-picture capture command is generated
in the image capture mode, storing the image data compressed
by the image codec as the still picture, and storing the image
data generated by the thumbnail generator as the thumbnail
picture;

wherein when a first picture size of the image data
generated in the camera is different from a first picture size
capable of displaying on the display unit, reducing and
displaying pixels of the image data to be displayed when the
image data generated in the camera is larger in size than is
capable of being displayed on the display unit,

wherein the user data on the second display area includes
at least one of a remaining amount of a battery power of the
mobile communication terminal, reception sensitivity and time
information.

Appeal 2011-001808
Application 10/419,984

4
C. REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Sawanobori US 5,936,668 Aug. 10, 1999
Anderson US 5,973,734 Oct. 26, 1999
Takeuchi US 2002/0067352 Al Jun. 06, 2002
Akiyama US 6,542,192 B2 Apr. 01, 2003
Torres US 6,738,075 B1 May 18, 2004
(filed Dec. 31, 1998)
Li US 2005/0206784 Al Sep. 22, 2005
(filed Jul. 31, 2002)
Niikawa US 7,124,326 Bl Oct. 17, 2006
(filed Nov. 09, 2000)

Claims 1, 2, 5, 7-15, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Torres in view of Akiyama, Anderson, and
Takeuchi.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Torres in view of Akiyama, Anderson, Takeuchi, and
Okayama.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Torres in view of Akiyama, Anderson, Takeuchi, and Li.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Torres in view of Akiyama, Anderson, Takeuchi, and
Sawanobori.

II. ISSUE
The dispositive issue before us is whether the Examiner has erred in
determining that the combination of Torres, Akiyama, Anderson, and
Takeuchi teaches or would have suggested a mobile communication terminal
Appeal 2011-001808
Application 10/419,984

5
including a thumbnail generator having “a sub-sampler for generating a
thumbnail image according to a pull down scheme” and “wherein the user
data on the second display area includes at least one of a remaining amount
of a battery power of the mobile communication terminal, reception
sensitivity and time information” (claim 1, emphasis added).

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Torres
1. Torres discloses a digital video camera (DVC) 100 having an
image processing Digital Signal Processor (DSP) 116 and a display screen
140 comprised of nine object cells 300; wherein, each object cell 300
includes an imager area 304 and an icon/information area 306 (Figs. 2A and
4A; col. 4, ll. 57-65; col. 5, ll. 25-35; and col. 7, ll. 22-47). For example,
when the image is a still image, the image area 304 displays a thumbnail
image of media objects which is a small low resolution version of the image
(col. 7, ll. 47-50).
Akiyama
2. Akiyama discloses a digital still camera having a full image
processor 14 and a rough image processor 16 that uses sub-sampling
processing of index image data from processor 14 to limit pixel data of an
image input and, thereby, generate a rough image data clear enough to
distinguish an object (col. 4, ll. 5-20; col. 6, ll. 5-12). The volume of rough
image data (10Kbytes) is suppressed to be 1/10 of the volume of full image
Appeal 2011-001808
Application 10/419,984

6
data for a present digital still camera (100 Kbytes) (col. 4, ll. 11-16; col. 6,
18-20).
3. The digital still camera also stores non-compressed index image
data, such as thumbnail image for displaying a plurality of pictures
simultaneously on a display device (col. 3, l. 65-col. 4, l. 7; col. 6, ll. 25-26).
The index image data is generated by sub-sampling processing; wherein,
pixel data of the original image data is removed to provide a data volume of
the index image data to be 1/10 of the volume of the primary image data
(col. 4, ll. 10-14; col. 6, ll. 27-28).
Anderson
4. Anderson discloses a method of generating as thumbnail image
using a central square portion of an image; wherein, the left and right edges
of a landscape image or the top and bottom edges of a portrait image are
cropped off (col. 12, ll. 1-14).
Takeuchi
5. Takeuchi disclose a portable telephone having a display that
displays the remaining amount of battery power and reception sensitivity in
a second display area (i.e. edge of screen) (Fig. 2) and a timeout timer value
to the remote controller 42 (¶ [0180]).

IV. ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7-15, and 17
Appellants contend that Akiyama “fails to disclose that its sub-
sampling processing generates a thumbnail image according to a pull down
scheme;” rather, Akiyama “merely discloses a sub-sampling process that
limits pixel data of an image input to generating a rough image data that can
Appeal 2011-001808
Application 10/419,984

7
be promptly displayed” (App. Br. 18). Appellants assert that “that limiting
the pixel data of an image input is not the same as generating a thumbnail
image according to a pull down scheme” (id.). Appellants argue that
“Takeuchi … completely fails to disclose the exemplary feature of a
camera” and “Takeuchi does not disclose, teach, or suggest displaying an
image or a thumbnail image generated by the camera on the first display area
and the remaining amount of battery power, reception sensitivity and time
information on the second display area” (App. Br. 20-21). The Appellants
contend further that “there is no sufficient basis or motivation to combine
the digital image device of Torres, which has no function as a mobile
communications terminal, and the portable telephone of Takeuchi, which has
no function as an image capturing/displaying device” nor “the portable
telephone of Takeuchi, which has no function as a camera device, with
Akiyama and Anderson, which have no function as a portable phone” (App.
Br. 21).
However, the “Examiner maintains that sub-sampling inherently
requires some sort of pull down scheme as one of ordinary skill would
recognize that subsampling is not randomly removing pixels, but instead a
predetermined processing that removes selected pixels to reduce the size of
an image” (Ans. 41-42). The Examiner notes that Appellants’ Specification
“is silent [as] to any specific pull-down scheme operation that shows what
pixels are to be removed to reduce an image and merely defines a pull down
scheme in terms of a relationship of an input image size and an output image
size” (Ans. 42). Thus, the broadest reasonable interpretation “of a pull down
scheme is a preconceived operation that reduces a given input size to a
desired output size” (id.). The Examiner finds that Akiyama discloses that
Appeal 2011-001808
Application 10/419,984

8
its subsampling “does this as ‘rough image data is suppressed to be, for
instance, about 10Kbytes’ which ‘is less than 1 /10 of the volume of full
image data for a present digital still camera’” and that Akiyama discloses
“images generated from sub-sampling [that] are thumbnail images” (id.).
We give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir.
1997). However, we will not read limitations from the Specification into the
claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim 1 does not place any limitation on what “pull down scheme”
means, includes, or represents. Although the Specification discloses that the
mobile communication terminal uses a 5-2 pull down scheme (Spec. 17:25-
18:10), the Specification also denotes that a 5:2 sub-sampling is synonymous
with a 5-2 pull down scheme (Spec. 30:14-16). Thus, we give “a sub-
sampler for generating a thumbnail image according to a pull down scheme”
its broadest reasonable interpretation as any sub-sampling that produces a
thumbnail image, as consistent with the Specification and claim 1.
Torres discloses a DVC having a processor 116 that generates
thumbnail images and a display having multiple cells for displaying
thumbnail images and other data (FF 1). We find that the processor
comprises a thumbnail generator and the display comprises a plurality of
display areas. That is, we find that Torres processor comprises “a thumbnail
generator for generating image data of at least one thumbnail picture” (claim
1) and that Torres display comprises “user data on the second display area”
(claim 1).
In addition, Akiyama discloses a digital still camera having not only a
rough image processor but also a full image processor that generates index
Appeal 2011-001808
Application 10/419,984

9
image data; wherein, the non-compressed index image data are thumbnail
images that are generated by sub-sampling processing (FF 2 and 3). We find
that the image processor includes a thumbnail generator that uses
sub-sampling for generating thumbnail images. That is, we find that
Akiyama’s camera comprises “a sub-sampler for generating a thumbnail
image according to a pull down scheme” (claim 1).
Moreover, Anderson discloses a method for thumbnail generation (FF
4), and Takeuchi disclose a portable telephone having a display that displays
the remaining amount of battery power and reception sensitivity (FF 5). We
find that Takeuchi’s display at least displays the remaining amount of
battery power of the mobile communication terminal. That is, we find that
Takeuchi’s display includes “user data on the second display area includes at
least one of a remaining amount of battery power of the mobile
communication terminal, reception sensitivity and time information” (claim
1, emphasis added).
In view of our claim construction above, we find that the combination
of Torres, Akiyama, Anderson, and Takeuchi at least suggests providing “a
sub-sampler for generating a thumbnail image according to a pull down
scheme” and “user data on the second display area includes at least one of a
remaining amount of a battery power of the mobile communication terminal,
reception sensitivity and time information,” as required by claim 1.
We also agree with the Examiner’s explicit motivation that combining
the references would be obvious since all four references are of an
“analogous art” of mobile communication terminals having image
processing and multiple displays for displaying thumbnail images and other
data (Ans. 8-9). The Supreme Court has stated that “[t]he combination of
Appeal 2011-001808
Application 10/419,984

10
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 Torres’ DVC (including a thumbnail generator and a plurality of display
cells for displaying thumbnail images and other data) with the Akiyama’s
processor that uses sub-sampling processing to generate thumbnail images,
Andersons thumbnail generator, and Takeuchi’s mobile terminal that
displays the battery life produces a mobile communications terminal having
a thumbnail generator having sub-sampling process for generating
thumbnails images and a display that displays the thumbnails and at least the
status of the battery power which would be obvious (Ans. 8-9; FF 1-5).
Accordingly, we find that Appellants have not shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Torres in
view of Akiyama, Anderson, and Takeuchi. Further, independent claims 7,
9, 11, 13, and 17 having similar claim language and claims 2, 5, 8, 10, 12,
14, and 15 (depending from claims 1, 7, 9, 11, and 13), which have not been
argued separately, fall with claim 1.
Claims 3, 4, and 6
We affirm supra the rejection of parent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. §103
as unpatentable over Torres in view of Akiyama, Anderson, and Takeuchi.
Appellants present no separate argument for the patentability of dependent
claims 3, 4, and 6.
As noted supra, however, we see no deficiencies in the combined
teachings of Torres, Akiyama, Anderson, and Takeuchi. We therefore
affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3 over Torres in view of Akiyama,
Appeal 2011-001808
Application 10/419,984

11
Anderson, Takeuchi, and Okayama; of claim 4 over Torres in view of
Akiyama, Anderson, Takeuchi, and Li; and of claim 6 over Torres in view of
Akiyama, Anderson, Takeuchi, and Sawanobori.

V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-15 and 17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is affirmed.
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

peb