Ex Parte Montan

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 28, 2013

11771418 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 28, 2013)

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