Ex Parte MontanDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 28, 201311771418 (P.T.A.B. May. 28, 2013) Copy Citation 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. 11/771,418 06/29/2007 Sune Montan 9342-401 (PS07 0565US1) 7913 54414 7590 05/28/2013 MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC, P.A. P.O. BOX 37428 RALEIGH, NC 27627 EXAMINER KHAN, USMAN A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2662 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/28/2013 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 SUNE MONTAN ____________________ Appeal 2012-010914 Application 11/771,418 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 2012-010914 Application 11/771,418 2 I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1, 5 - 9, 13 - 17, 19, and 20 (App. Br. 2). Claims 2-4, 10-12, and 18 have been canceled (App. Br. 2 and 11). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. A. INVENTION Appellant’s invention is directed to an electronic device having a camera which includes an automatic exposure module configured to determine an exposure for a picture by automatically adjusting an aperture size, shutter timing, an International Standard Organization (ISO) setting (indicating the sensitivity of the camera’s image sensor), and additional parameters, such as binning (combining the charge of adjacent photosites/pixels into a single larger charge) and frame adding (capturing several picture frames and combining to generate one image having reduced shot noise) (Abstract; Spec. 6: 20-21 and 8:19-9:20). B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM Claim 1 is exemplary: 1. An electronic device, comprising: a camera that comprises an automatic exposure module, the automatic exposure module being configured to determine an exposure for a picture by automatically adjusting an aperture size, shutter timing, and/or an ISO setting and being further configured to automatically adjust the exposure for the picture responsive to an additional parameter, the additional parameter comprising binning in which charge is combined from adjacent Appeal 2012-010914 Application 11/771,418 3 photosites and frame adding in which charge from multiple exposures is combined. C. REJECTIONS The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Joseph’724 US 2006/0011724 A1 Jan. 19, 2006 Okada US 2006/0127084 A1 June 15, 2006 Joseph ’115 US 2007/0164115 A1 July 19, 2007 Admitted Prior Art (APA) Claims 1, 8, 9, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Joseph ‘724 in view of Joseph ‘115 and Okada. Claims 5-7, 13-15, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Joseph ‘724 in view of Joseph ‘115, Okada, and APA. II. ISSUE The dispositive issue before us is whether the Examiner has erred in determining that the combination of Joseph ‘724 , Joseph ‘115, and Okada teaches or would have suggested “a camera that comprises an automatic exposure module, the automatic exposure module being configured to determine an exposure for a picture by automatically adjusting an aperture size, shutter timing, and/or an ISO setting and being further configured to automatically adjust the exposure for the picture responsive to an additional parameter, the additional parameter comprising binning in which charge is combined from adjacent photosites and frame adding in which charge from multiple exposures is combined” (claim 1, emphasis added). Appeal 2012-010914 Application 11/771,418 4 III. FINDINGS OF FACT The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of the evidence. Joseph ‘724 1. Joseph ‘724 discloses an auto-exposure system 10 that determines exposure parameters, such as shutter speed, sensor gain, lens aperture, and brightness of illumination (¶ [0027]). The auto-exposure system also correlates the light intensity x, or other characteristic of the low resolution image with one or more other look-up tables corresponding to other auto-exposure parameters (¶ [0030]). Joseph ‘115 2. Joseph ‘115 discloses an automatic exposure process that is expedited through the use of windowing or binning; wherein, instead of reading out and analyzing the entire pixel array 34a, only those portions of the pixel array that correspond to an image of interest (e.g., an image of the target bar code or an aiming pattern) are read out and analyzed, saving read out and subsequent analysis time (¶ [0035]). Okada 3. Okada discloses an image combination unit 18, for correcting the image blur by combining the images, having two modes of operation: (1) a single shooting mode where a plurality of images are taken in response to the depression of a release switch and these images are combine into one image and (2) a continuous shooting mode in which a plurality of images that are corrected with respect to image blur are finally obtained by one operation of the release switch (¶¶ [0049], [0055], and [0075]). Appeal 2012-010914 Application 11/771,418 5 IV. ANALYSIS Claims 1, 8, 9, 16, and 17 Appellant contends that although “Joseph ‘115 does appear to disclose the use of windowing or binning to expedite the automatic exposure process,” “Joseph ‘115 does not appear to include any disclosure of using frame adding in an automatic exposure process, much less combining binning with frame adding” (App. Br. 6). Appellant argues that “one skilled in the art wouldn’t be motivated to modify the optical code reading systems of Joseph ‘724 and Joseph ‘115 to include multiple frames of a single optical code as described in Okada as such a design would increase overhead in decoding the multiple frames and thereby destroy the purpose of providing a high speed optical code reading system” (id.). However, the Examiner finds that “Appellant cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references” (Ans. 19)(citations omitted) given that “the [E]xaminer uses Okada . . . to teach a parameter comprising frame adding” and not Joseph ‘115 as Appellant asserts (Ans. 20). The Examiner notes that “[t]he test for combining references is what the combination of disclosures taken as a whole would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art” (Ans. 18) (citation omitted) and that “all of the references are within the field of endeavor as the present application since all of the references deal with imaging as discussed throughout each of the individual references” (Ans. 19). Appellant’s argument that “Joseph ‘115 does not appear to include any disclosure of using frame adding in an automatic exposure process, Appeal 2012-010914 Application 11/771,418 6 much less combining binning with frame adding” is not commensurate in scope with the specific language of claim 1 (App. Br. 6). In particular, claim 1 does not recite such “combining binning with frame adding” as Appellant argues. 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 merely requires that the automatic exposure module is “configured to” to automatically adjust the exposure for the picture responsive to an additional parameter such as binning and frame adding. We find such “configured to” language to merely represent a statement of intended use of the automatic exposure module which does not limit the claim. Particularly, an intended use 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 give claim 1 its broadest reasonable interpretation as merely requiring an automatic exposure module capable of automatically adjusting the exposure for a picture responsive to binning and frame adding. Joseph ‘724 discloses an auto-exposure system that determines exposure parameters, such as shutter speed, sensor gain, lens aperture, and brightness of illumination (FF 1). We find that the auto-exposure system of Joseph ‘724 comprises “a camera that comprises an automatic exposure module, the automatic exposure module being configured to determine an exposure for a picture by automatically adjusting an aperture size, shutter timing, and/or an ISO setting” (claim 1). Appeal 2012-010914 Application 11/771,418 7 Joseph ‘115 discloses an automatic exposure process that is expedited through the use of binning, where only those portions of the pixel array that correspond to an image of interest are read out and analyzed (FF 2). We find that the device having the automatic exposure process of Joseph ‘115 comprises as an automatic exposure module capable of automatically adjusting the exposure for a picture responsive to binning. In addition, Okada discloses an image combination unit, for correcting the image blur by combining the images, that captures a plurality of images and combines these images into one image (FF 3). We find that image combination unit comprises an automatic exposure module capable of automatically adjusting the exposure for a picture responsive to frame adding. In view of our claim construction above, we find that the combination of Joseph ‘724, Joseph ‘115, and Okada at least suggests all of the features of claim 1. Though Appellant also contends that “to include multiple frames of a single optical code as described in Okada [within the optical code reading systems of Joseph ‘724 and Joseph ‘115] as such a design would increase overhead in decoding the multiple frames and thereby destroy the purpose of providing a high speed optical code reading system” which prefers “low resolution images . . . to reduce decoding time” (App. Br. 6), we do not find that this assertion is persuasive. Since Joseph ‘724 discloses automatic exposure system that determines an exposure for a picture by automatically adjusting an aperture size, shutter timing, and/or an ISO setting, Joseph ‘115 discloses an automatic exposure process that is expedited through the use of binning, and Appeal 2012-010914 Application 11/771,418 8 Okada discloses an image combination unit that corrects image blur using frame adding, we conclude that the combination of one known element (Joseph ‘724’s automatic exposure system) with others (Joseph ‘115’s automatic exposure process and Okada’s image combination unit) would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Thus, we find that generating automatic exposure system capable of automatically adjusting an aperture size, shutter timing, and/or an ISO setting as taught by Joseph ‘724 in addition to Joseph ‘115’s automatic exposure process and Okada’s image combination unit is no more than a simple arrangement of old elements, with each performing the same function it had been known to perform, yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). The skilled artisan would “be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle” since the skilled artisan is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 420-21. Appellant has presented no evidence that combining Joseph ‘724’s automatic exposure system with the binning function of Joseph ‘115 and the frame adding function of Okada was “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” or “represented an unobvious step over the prior art.” Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418-19). We also agree with the Examiner’s explicit motivation that combining the references would be obvious for generating “an improved image” (Ans. 20). The Supreme Court has stated that “[t]he combination of familiar Appeal 2012-010914 Application 11/771,418 9 elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. Thus, we find no error in the Examiner’s finding that the combination of Joseph ‘724’s automatic exposure system that automatically adjusting an aperture size, shutter timing, and/or an ISO setting with the binning function of Joseph ‘115 and the frame adding function, as disclosed in Okada, produces an automatic exposure module capable of automatically adjusting the exposure for a picture responsive to binning and frame adding which would be obvious (Ans. 20; FF1-3). Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Joseph ‘724 in view of Joseph ‘115 and Okada. Further, independent claims 9 and 17 having similar claim language and claims 8 and 16 (depending from claims 1 and 9) which have not been argued separately, fall with claim 1. Claims 5-7, 13-15, 19, and 20 Appellant argues that claims 5-7, 13-15, 19, and 20 are patentable over the cited prior art for the same reasons asserted with respect to independent claims 1, 9, and 17 (App. Br. 7). As noted supra, however, we find that the combined teachings of Joseph ‘724, Joseph ‘115, and Okada at least suggests all the features of claims 1, 9, and 17. We therefore affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5-7, 13-15, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 Joseph ‘724 in view of Joseph ‘115, Okada, and APA. Appeal 2012-010914 Application 11/771,418 10 V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 5 - 9, 13 - 17, 19, and 20 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 llw Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation