Ex Parte Posa et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 7, 2016

13209025 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 7, 2016)

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.
13/209,025 08/12/2011 John G. Posa POS-04502/29 9212
25006 7590 12/09/2016
DTNSMORF fr SHOHT T T P
EXAMINER
900 Wilshire Drive VILLECCO, JOHN M
Suite 300
TROY, MI 48084 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3649
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/09/2016 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):
docket@patlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN G. POSA and BENJAMIN E. POSA
Appeal 2014-009852
Application 13/209,025
Technology Center 3600
Before JASON V. MORGAN, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and JUSTIN BUSCH,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1—26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious. Non-Final Act. 5—15.
Oral arguments were heard on November 15, 2016. A transcript of the
hearing will be added to the record in due course. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appeal 2014-009852
Application 13/209,025
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 10 are independent claims. The claims “relate generally
to still and video-image gathering and, in particular, to apparatus and
methods providing automatic zoom functions in conjunction with pan or tilt
actions.” Spec. 12. Claim 1 is representative and reproduced below:
1. An image-vie wing system, comprising:
a body with a lens to gather an image including target
subject matter;
an image sensor having a resolution in pixels for receiving
the image;
a viewfinder for displaying at least a portion of the image
received by the image sensor;
apparatus for automatically zooming out the image
including the target subject matter displayed in the viewfinder if
relative movement is detected between the target subject matter
and the body, and automatically zooming in the image including
the target subject matter displayed in the viewfinder if the
relative movement between the target subject matter and the
body slows down or stops; and
wherein the apparatus is operative to automatically zoom
out or zoom in, regardless of the position of the target subject
matter in the viewfinder, in response to movement of the target
subject matter relative to the body, movement of the body
relative to the target subject matter, or movement of both the
target subject matter and body sufficient to cause relative
movement therebetween.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6—10, 12, 13, 15—18, 21, 22, 25, and 26 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable in view of Akazawa (JP
2006-115525 A) and Yanagi (JP 2009-033450, Feb. 12, 2009). Non-Final
Act. 5-11.
2
Appeal 2014-009852
Application 13/209,025
Claims 2 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable in view of Akazawa, Yanagi, and Kuno (JP 2005-346958, Dec.
27, 1993). Non-Final Act. 11.
Claims 5 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable in view of Akazawa, Yanagi, and Grosvenor (US 2006/
0050982 Al; pub. Mar. 9, 2006). Non-Final Act. 12.
Claims 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable in view of Akazawa, Yanagi, and Jung et al. (US 2005/
0074185 Al; pub. Apr. 7, 2005). Non-Final Act. 12—13.
Claims 23 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable in view of Akazawa, Yanagi, and Miyasako (US 2010/0271494
Al; pub. Oct. 28, 2010). Non-Final Act. 14—15.
OPINION
Rejection of Claims 1, 3, 4, 6—10, 12, 13, 15—18, 21, 22, 25, and 26
The Examiner finds the combination of Akazawa and Yanagi teaches
each of the limitations of independent claims 1 and 10. Specifically, the
Examiner finds Akazawa teaches each of the limitations of claim 1 except
“Akazawa fails to specifically disclose displaying a zoomed in and zoomed
out image.” Non-Final Act. 6. The Examiner finds that Yanagi, however,
teaches “displaying] an automatically zoomed in or zoomed out image in
order to keep it from framing out and to capture a[] high quality image.” Id.
The Examiner states:
[I]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time the invention was made to drive the electronic or optical
zoom of Akazawa to display the image within a zoom frame
{rather than the entire image with an overlaid zoom frame).
Doing so would result in the combination of prior art elements to
3
Appeal 2014-009852
Application 13/209,025
yield predictable results — namely the ability to effectively
capture a moving image and display the captured image to a user
Non-Final Act. 7 (emphasis added).
Appellants argue the proposed rationale for combining Akazawa and
Yanagi is not rational. App. Br. 3^4. First, Appellants assert both Akazawa
and Yanagi already independently provide “the ability to effectively capture
a moving image and display the captured image to the user.” Id. (citing
Declaration Barry H. Schwab (“Schwab Deck”) 112). Appellants further
argue that combining the teachings as suggested by the Examiner would
change the principle of operation of Akazawa by eliminating the display of
“zoom frames” in its viewfinder and, instead displaying only the image
within the zoom frame. Id. at 5 (citing Schwab Deck 111). Appellants also
point to the Non-Final Action, id., where the Examiner agrees “that if
Akazawa were modified to display the entire image similar to Yanagi, the
zoom frame would become superfluous,” Non-Final Act. 3. Appellants
argue eliminating the zoom frame would change the principle of operation of
Akazawa because all of Akazawa’s framing operations would no longer be
available. App. Br. 5.
In the Answer, the Examiner states that combining Yanagi and
Akazawa would not eliminate Akazawa’s zoom frame, but that “the zoom
frame would be displayed, instead of only being recorded.” Ans. 14
(emphasis added). Appellants contend the Examiner’s assertion is
inaccurate because Akazawa already displays the area within the zoom
frame (without Yanagi’s teachings), “it’s just not zoomed in or out because
there’s no reason to do so” and, accordingly, provides no basis for
combining Yanagi with Akazawa. Reply 2—3.
4
Appeal 2014-009852
Application 13/209,025
We agree with Appellants that, in addition to capturing an image in its
zoom frame, Akazawa already discloses displaying an image including the
subject of the zoom frame. Therefore, we agree with Appellants that the
reason the Examiner proffers for combining Akazawa and Yanagi lacks a
rational underpinning. However, Akazawa also states that “instead of
changing the zoom frame, it is also possible to drive zoom mechanism 212
shown in Figure 1 to change the optical zoom amount or both the electronic
zoom amount and the optical zoom amount.” Akazawa 170. Accordingly,
Akazawa describes zooming in or out instead of changing the zoom frame,
which provides a specific motivation1 for one of ordinary skill in the art to
contemplate incorporating displaying only the zoomed image, as taught by
Yanagi. Appellants’ argument, App. Br. 4—5, and testimony, see
Declaration of Barry H. Schwab | 11, that combining Akazawa and Yanagi
would change Akazawa’s principle of operation are unpersuasive in light of
Akazawa’s explicit statement of optically zooming instead of changing the
zoom frame. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1
because the rejection lacks a sufficient rationale for combining Akazawa and
Yanagi. We newly reject claim 1, simply modifying the Examiner’s
rationale for combining Akazawa and Yanagi in light of the additional
teachings and suggestions in paragraph 70 of Akazawa discussed above.
Appellants argue independent claim 10, which contains similar
limitations to independent claim 1, and dependent claims 3, 4, 6—9, 12, 13,
15—18, 21, 22, 25, and 26, which depend from one of claims 1 and 10, are
patentable for the same reasons asserted with respect to claim 1. For the
1 We leave it to the Examiner to ascertain whether this additional description
in Akazawa shows that Akazawa alone anticipates the claimed invention.
5
Appeal 2014-009852
Application 13/209,025
reasons discussed above, we agree with the Examiner that claims 4, 6—10,
12, 13, 15—18, 21, 22, 25, and 26 would have been obvious in view of the
combined teachings of Akazawa and Yanagi. However, we reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 4, 6—10, 12, 13, 15—18, 21, 22, 25, and 26
because the rejection lacks a sufficient rationale for combining Akazawa and
Yanagi. We newly reject claims 4, 6—10, 12, 13, 15—18, 21, 22, 25, and 26
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Akazawa and Yanagi,
simply modifying the Examiner’s rationale for combining Akazawa and
Yanagi in light of the additional teachings and suggestions in paragraph 70
of Akazawa, which were discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Rejection of Claims 2 and 11
The Examiner finds the combination of Akazawa and Yanagi fails to
teach a “plurality of display buffers storing versions of the image gathered
over time” and detecting the relative movement “by comparing changes in
the images stored in the display buffers,” as recited in claims 2 and 11 and
cites Kuno for those teachings. Non-Final Act. 11—12. Appellants argue the
purpose of Kuno’s buffers “is not to detect relative movement between
target subject matter and a camera body.” App. Br. 6. Kuno, however,
states that it compares the images in the image memories and “detects a
mobile object from the difference between the positioned images in the 1st
and 2nd image memories 2 and 3.” Kuno, Abstract. We find Appellants’
argument unpersuasive because Kuno discloses storing versions of the image
gathered over time in memories (a plurality of buffers) and detecting relative
movement (movement of an object with respect to the camera) by comparing
changes in the images.
6
Appeal 2014-009852
Application 13/209,025
Appellants also argue the Examiner’s rationale is insufficient because
all three cited references already disclose ways of tracking a subject. App.
Br. 6. The Examiner states it would have been obvious to an ordinarily
skilled artisan to substitute Kuno’s known method for detecting positional
deviation between frames into Akazawa’s known system, which would have
yielded predictable results of tracking a subject. Non-Final Act. 11.
Appellants have not sufficiently demonstrated a flaw in the Examiner’s
rationale that the proposed combination of Kuno to the Akazawa-Yanagi
system is the mere application of one known technique to a known method,
yielding predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
401, 417 (2007); see also Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., 520 F.3d
1337, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“This is a textbook case of when the asserted
claims involve a combination of familiar elements according to known
methods that does no more than yield predictable results.”). However, we
reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2 and 11 because the rejection
lacks a sufficient rationale for combining Akazawa and Yanagi. We newly
reject claims 2 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Akazawa, Yanagi, and Kuno, simply modifying the Examiner’s rationale for
combining Akazawa and Yanagi in light of the additional teachings and
suggestions in paragraph 70 of Akazawa, which were discussed above with
respect to claim 1.
Rejection of Claims 5 and 14
The Examiner finds neither Akazawa nor Yanagi discloses “an
accelerometer or tilt sensor to detect the relative movement,” as recited in
claims 5 and 14, but that Grosvenor teaches the limitation. Non-Final Act.
12. Specifically, the Examiner finds Grosvenor discloses “a camera (10)
7
Appeal 2014-009852
Application 13/209,025
which uses motion sensors (12a/12b)... to determine the motion of the
camera,” and, in response, zoom in or out. Id. (citing Grosvenor || 30, 32—
33). The Examiner states it would have been obvious to modify the
Akazawa-Yanagi system with Grosvenor’s known method for using motion
sensors to determine relative movement. Id.; Ans. 15—16.
Appellants argue Grosvenor “fails to explicitly disclose an
accelerometer or tilt sensor” and “Grosvenor’s motion sensors are used to
determine if an acceptable image cannot be captured or a given zoom setting
cannot be used due to excessive motion which would result in blurring of an
image.” App. Br. 7. Appellants also argue the Examiner’s rationale is
insufficient because all three cited references already disclose “an effective
way of tracking a subject,” and “[t]he result of combining Akazawa, Yanagi
and Grosvenor is not predictable.” Id.
The Examiner merely relies on Grosvenor for its teaching of using
motion sensors to detect movement of the camera relative to the subject
image. Grosvenor explains that its motion sensors “may be mini-gyroscopic
devices” and the sensors “are operable to detect side to side and up/down
rotation of the image capture device 10.” Grosvenor 130. Appellants have
not explained sufficiently why Grosvenor’s mini-gyroscopic motion sensors
do not teach the recited “tilt sensors.” Regardless of the ultimate purpose of
Grosvenor’s motion sensors, Grosvenor indicates that the sensors detect
movement. Id. Therefore, Appellants’ argument that Grosvenor does not
teach using motion sensors to detect the relative movement is not persuasive.
Moreover, Appellants have not sufficiently demonstrated a flaw in the
Examiner’s rationale that the proposed combination is the mere application
of one known technique (using motion sensors to detect relative movement)
8
Appeal 2014-009852
Application 13/209,025
to a known method (the Akazawa-Yanagi system), yielding predictable
results. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 401, 417. However, we reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 5 and 14 because the rejection lacks a
sufficient rationale for combining Akazawa and Yanagi. We newly reject
claims 5 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Akazawa, Yanagi, and Grosvenor, simply modifying the Examiner’s
rationale for combining Akazawa and Yanagi in light of the additional
teachings and suggestions in paragraph 70 of Akazawa, which were
discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Rejection of Claims 19 and 20
The Examiner finds neither Akazawa nor Yanagi discloses the
“maximum level of zoom-in, zoom-out, or both, are adjustable,” as recited in
claims 19 and 20, but that Jung teaches the limitation. Non-Final Act. 13.
Specifically, the Examiner finds “Jung discloses a camera with an auto zoom
function” and “the camera uses the main target size as the optimal zoom
position and adjusts the zoom setting to be in-line with the main target size
ratio.” Id. (citing Jung || 32—39). The Examiner interprets the optimal
zoom setting “to be setting a maximum level of zoom in.” Id.
Appellants argue Yanagi doesn’t teach or suggest anything “that
would give rise to the expectation that a subject. . . returns to the center of
the image,” and “there is no evidence in support of Yanagi returning to the
optimal zoom setting as taught by Jung” because Yanagi presumably
“zooms in as much as it can.” App. Br. 8—9 (emphasis omitted).
Yanagi discloses a system that zooms in when an object is in the
center of the image. It is irrelevant whether the same object “returns to the
center of the image” because the Examiner merely relies on Yanagi for its
9
Appeal 2014-009852
Application 13/209,025
teaching of zooming in on an object when the object enters a particular zone.
The Examiner relies on Jung to teach zooming by an adjustable amount.
Thus, the Examiner relies on the combined teachings of Yanagi and Jung as
teaching or suggesting the disputed limitation in claims 19 and 20.
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive because Appellants argue the
references individually when the rejection is based on a combination of
references. See In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986) (“Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references
individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references.”). However, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 19 and 20 because the rejection lacks a sufficient rationale for
combining Akazawa and Yanagi. We newly reject claims 19 and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Akazawa, Yanagi, and Jung,
simply modifying the Examiner’s rationale for combining Akazawa and
Yanagi in light of the additional teachings and suggestions in paragraph 70
of Akazawa, which were discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Rejection of Claims 23 and 24
The Examiner finds the combination of Akazawa and Yanagi fails to
teach “image stabilization apparatus” and that “movements of the body
indicative of jiggling do not trigger the automatic zoom-out or zoom-in
functions,” as recited in claims 23 and 24, and cites Miyasako for those
teachings. Non-Final Act. 14—15. Specifically, the Examiner finds
Miyasako discloses “the ability to differentiate motion vectors of a subject
from motion vectors attributable to camera shake” and “the ability to correct
for the camera shake.” Id. at 14 (citing Miyasako 62, 69, 185). The
Examiner states it would have been obvious to modify the Akazawa-Yanagi
10
Appeal 2014-009852
Application 13/209,025
system to include Miyasako’s known method differentiating between camera
shake and movement of the subject and to correct for camera shake so the
auto-zoom function does not miscalculate movement of the subject. Id.',
Ans. 17—18. The Examiner notes the rationale used is that the suggested
combination is merely a simple substitution of one known element for
another, which yields predictable results. Ans. 18 (citing KSR, 550 U.S.
398; Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2143(I)(B)).
Appellants argue the purpose of Miyasako is to compensate for
camera jiggling and the Examiner’s rationale “does not provide adequate
support of the proposed combination.” App. Br. 8. Appellants further assert
that the Examiner’s rationale of “stabilizing] an image signal in the camera
of Akazawa” is inapplicable because “Akazawa does not zoom-out or zoom-
in the subject matter in a viewfinder, but instead presents a zoom frame.” Id.
at 8—9.
Appellants have not persuaded us of error that Miyasako teaches both
differentiating between camera shake and movement of a subject and
adjusting for camera shake. Moreover, Appellants have not sufficiently
demonstrated a flaw in the Examiner’s rationale that the proposed
combination is the mere application of one known technique (distinguishing
camera shake from object movement) to a known method (the Akazawa-
Yanagi system), yielding predictable results (tracking a subject without
miscalculating due to camera shake). See KSR, 550 U.S. at 401, 417.
However, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 23 and 24 because
the rejection lacks a sufficient rationale for combining Akazawa and Yanagi.
We newly reject claims 23 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Akazawa, Yanagi, and Miyasako, simply modifying the
11
Appeal 2014-009852
Application 13/209,025
Examiner’s rationale for combining Akazawa and Yanagi in light of the
additional teachings and suggestions in paragraph 70 of Akazawa, which
were discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Conclusion
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal and Reply
Briefs, the Examiner’s rejection in the Non-Final Action, and the
Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments in the Answer. We find
Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred persuasive and reverse the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—26. We enter a new ground of rejection
of claims 1—26, modifying the Examiner’s rejections in the Non-Final
Action only to the extent this decision changes the rationale for combining
the cited teachings of Akazawa and Yanagi.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—26
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
We newly reject claims 1—26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
This Decision contains new grounds of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(b). Section 41.50(b) provides that “[a] new ground of rejection . . .
shah not be considered final for judicial review.”
Section 41.50(b) also provides that Appellants, WITHIN TWO
MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of
the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to
avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate
amendment of the claims so rejected or new Evidence relating to
the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered
12
Appeal 2014-009852
Application 13/209,025
by the examiner, in which event the proceeding will be remanded
to the examiner. . . .
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be
reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same Record.
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§§ 41.50(f), 41.52(b).
REVERSED
37 C.F.R, $ 41.50(b)
13