Ex Parte Nickel et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 25, 2013

10346462 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

____________________

Ex parte JANICE H. NICKELand PETER HARTWELL
____________________

Appeal 2010-010089
Application 10/346,462
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 2010-010089
Application 10/346,462

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-7, 9, 10, 18-24, and 26. Claims 11-17 have been withdrawn and
claims 8, 25, and 27-30 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

A. INVENTION
According to Appellants, the invention relates to the field of digital
cameras, and more particularly to processing a captured image (Spec. 1, ll.
4-5).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method of processing an image comprising:

capturing the image with an image-capturing device
wherein the image is included in an image file;

determining an orientation of the image-capturing device;

encoding the orientation of the image-capturing device
into the image file; and

reconfiguring a display of the image based on the
orientation.

Appeal 2010-010089
Application 10/346,462

3
C. REJECTION
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:

Lands US 6,201,554 B1 March 13, 2001
Anderson US 6,262,769 B1 July 17, 2001

Claims 1-3, 5, 9, 10, 18-20, 22, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Anderson.
Claims 6, 7, 23, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Anderson.
Claims 4 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Anderson in view of Lands.

II. ISSUE
The dispositive issue before us is whether the Examiner has erred in
finding that Anderson teaches capturing an image that is “included in an
image file” and “encoding the orientation of the image-capturing device into
the image file” (claim 1, emphasis added).

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Anderson
1. Anderson discloses a camera with a processing unit that
transfers the pixel signals output by an imaging device to an image memory
(col. 7, ll. 8-10).
Appeal 2010-010089
Application 10/346,462

4
2. An orientation unit is enclosed which includes first and second
orientation sensors (col. 6, ll. 10-11), wherein the right and left orientation
signals are stored in the orientation signal memory (col. 6, ll. 44-47).

IV. ANALYSIS
Claims 1-3, 5, 9, 10, 18-20, 22, and 26
Appellants contend that “Anderson stores the orientation into the
orientation memory 552, not an image file” (App. Br. 8), and thus, cannot
anticipate claim 1. Upon review of the records, we agree with Appellants.
In particular, we cannot find any teaching in the sections of Anderson
referenced by the Examiner of encoding the orientation of the image-
capturing device into an image file, wherein the image file includes the
captured image, as required by claim 1. Instead, Anderson discloses storing
a captured image in an image memory (FF 1), while storing orientation data
in an orientation signal memory (FF 2). Thus, even if we were to agree with
the Examiner that Anderson’s storing of the orientation data comprises
encoding the orientation data, we agree with Appellants that the orientation
data is not sent to the image file that contains the captured image data.
We thus find that the Examiner has failed to meet the initial burden of
proof required for the rejection pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 102 (b).
Accordingly, we are constrained to reverse the Examiner’s rejection of
representative claim 1 over Anderson. Independent claim 18 recites similar
limitations and thus stands with claim 1. Accordingly, we also reverse the
rejection of independent claim 18 and claims 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, 19, 20, 22, and
26 depending respectively from claims 1 and 18 over Anderson. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2010-010089
Application 10/346,462

5
Claims 4, 6, 7, 21, 23, and 24
The Examiner does not explain how the deficiencies of Anderson, as
discussed above would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time of the invention, or how Lands would have cured the deficiencies
of Anderson. Accordingly, we are also constrained to reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 6, 7, 23, and 24 over Anderson, and the and
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4 and 21 over Anderson in view of Lands
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 9, 10, 18-20, 22, and 26
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and of claims 4, 6, 7, 21, 23, and 24 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.

REVERSED

tkl