Ex Parte Lo

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 21, 2017

13566292 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 21, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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.
13/566,292 08/03/2012 Allen Kwok-Wah Lo 890-012.007-1 1017
4955 7590 02/23/2017
WARE, FRESSOLA, MAGUIRE & BARBER LLP
BRADFORD GREEN, BUILDING 5
755 MAIN STREET
MONROE, CT 06468
EXAMINER
TRAN, TRANG U
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2422
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/23/2017 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):
mail @ warefressola. com
uspatents @ warefressola. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALLEN KWOK-WAH LO
Appeal 2016-005927
Application 13/566,292
Technology Center 2400
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
INTRODUCTION
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1—7. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
reverse.
Appellant’s disclosed invention is a multiple-lens camera for three
dimensional (3D) photography (Spec. 1:6—19; Abs.; Figs. 1, 2; claim 1).
Independent claim 1 is exemplary of the subject matter of Appellant’s
disclosed invention, and is reprinted below with emphases added to key
portions of the claim:
Appeal 2016-005927
Application 13/566,292
1. A camera, comprising:
a plurality of imaging lenses arranged to form a plurality
of images on a same plane; and
a single image sensor disposed on said same plane, the
image sensor dimensioned to capture at least two of said
plurality of images simultaneously formed on the image sensor.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection (Final Act. 3—5; Ans. 2—
4) in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner has erred (App. Br.
2—9; Reply Br. 2—10), as well as the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s
arguments in the Briefs (Ans. 4—5). We concur with Appellant’s contentions
(App. Br. 2—3; Reply Br. 2—4) that the Examiner erred in finding
independent claim 1 is anticipated by Lablans (US 8,355,042 B2; issued Jan.
15, 2013 and filed on Aug. 10, 2009).
Specifically, we agree with Appellant (App. Br. 2—3) that Lablans’
Figure 1 shows, and the accompanying text (col. 6,1. 6 to col. 7,1. 39)
describes, three image sensors being used instead of one as claimed.
Lablans clearly states “each lens [of a camera] being associated with an
image sensor” (col. 6,11. 8—9 and 24—25 (emphases added)). Lablans’ three
imaging lenses 101, 102, and 103 shown in Figure 1 are disclosed as being
associated with three different image sensors, and not one as claimed.
Therefore, Lablans’ disclosure of a one-to-one ratio of imaging lenses with
imaging sensors used in a camera cannot anticipate Appellant’s subject
matter recited in claim 1 of “a plurality of imaging lenses” associated with
“a single image sensor.” Neither the Examiner’s rejection nor the
2
Appeal 2016-005927
Application 13/566,292
Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments (Final Act. 4; Ans. 2 and 4—
5) in this regard convince us otherwise.
We also agree with Appellant (Reply Br. 2—3) that the Examiner erred
in rejecting claims 1—7 for anticipation because Lablans’ Figure 1 pertains to
a different embodiment than the calibration procedure relied upon by the
Examiner in the rejection (see Ans. 4 citing Lablans col. 14,11. 5—16
describing Fig. 6). In addition, the Examiner’s rejection relies upon “a
further embodiment” (see Lablans col. 23,1. 65) as disclosing a camera that
has more than three lenses (see Ans. 5 citing Lablans col. 23,1. 65 to col. 24,
1. 13).1 Finally, the Examiner’s reasoning in the Answer discusses several
alternative disclosures and suggestions of Lablans (see Ans. 5). Specifically,
the Examiner finds that “3 lenses may be arranged in a triangle,” and
“[mjultiple lenses may also be arranged in a rectangle, a square, or an array,
1 The Examiner’s anticipation rejection improperly combines multiple
embodiments from Lablans. See, e.g., Net Money In, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc.,
545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (For anticipation, “‘[t]he [prior art]
reference must clearly and unequivocally disclose the claimed [invention] or
direct those skilled in the art to the [invention] without any need for picking,
choosing, and combining various disclosures not directly related to each
other by the teachings of the cited reference.’” (parenthetically quoting In re
Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 587 (CCPA 1972))). Specifically, the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 cites Figure 1, which is described in column 6, line 23 to
column 7, line 38 (see Final Act. 4), and also relies on Lablans’s
embodiments (i) shown in Figure 6, which is described in column 12, line 59
to column 15 (see Ans. 4), line 17 as a separate embodiment; and (ii)
described at column 23, line 65 to column 24, line 29 (Ans. 5 citing Lablans
col. 23,11. 65—66 which pertain to “a camera [having] 3 or more lenses, each
lens being associated with an image sensor”). A close review of column 5,
lines 1—42 (“Description of the Drawings” section) supports that the
Examiner has cited to, and relied upon, several different embodiments in the
rejection.
3
Appeal 2016-005927
Application 13/566,292
or a circle, or any arrangement that may provide a stitched image as
desired,” or “[e]ach lens may have its own image sensor,” or “may also
have two or more lenses share a sensor” (Ans. 5 citing Lablans col. 24,11.
6—13). The Examiner’s reliance upon so many different arrangements
and/or embodiments is not the proper basis for a finding of anticipation, and
is more appropriate as the basis for a conclusion of obviousness.
In view of the foregoing, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of independent claim 1 as being anticipated by Lablans. For similar reasons,
and based on the ultimate dependency of claims 2—7 on claim 1, we also do
not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2—7.
DECISION2
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—7 is reversed.
REVERSED
2 Our finding is directed to a determination of whether or not Lablans
anticipates the invention set forth in claims 1—7. The Patent Trial and
Appeal Board is a review body, rather than a place of initial examination.
Should there be further prosecution of claims 1—7, we leave to the Examiner
to consider the appropriateness of further rejection(s) of independent claim 1
and its respective dependent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the cited
reference applied differently or in combination with additional references.
4