Ex Parte Prentice et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 23, 201613798692 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 23, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 131798,692 03/13/2013 Wayne E. Prentice 23524 7590 06/27/2016 FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 3000 K STREET N.W. SUITE 600 WASHINGTON, DC 20007-5109 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 098888-9955 9792 EXAMINER SPINKS, ANTOINETTE T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2663 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/27/2016 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): ipdocketing@foley.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte WAYNE E. PRENTICE, ROBERT J. PARADA JR., TETSUJI UEZONO, KENICHI NAKAJIMA, and WILLIAM V. FINTEL Appeal2014-008964 Application 13/798,692 Technology Center 2600 Before JAMES R. HUGHES, CATHERINE SHIANG, and KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges. JIV ANI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1, 3-9, 11-14, and 16-20, which are all the claims pending in the present patent application. Claims 2, 10, and 15 are cancelled. Final Act. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Appellants identify Intellectual Ventures Fund 83 LLC as the real party in interest. Br. 2. Appeal2014-008964 Application 13/798,692 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The present application relates to digital cameras that identify the type of scene to be captured in order to adjust the exposure. Spec. i-f 2. Claim 1 is illustrative (disputed limitations emphasized): 1. An image processing device comprising: an image sensor configured to provide initial sensor image data and final sensor image data; a lens configured to expose an image of a scene onto the image sensor; an exposure control system configured to adjust an exposure level of a final image on the image sensor in response to a scene type; and a processing system configured to: process the initial sensor image data to select one of a plurality of predetermined scene types, provide the selected scene type to the exposure control system prior to capturing the final sensor image data to cause the exposure control system to adjust the exposure level of the final image on the image sensor, wherein the exposure control system sets the exposure level of the final image to be a default scene exposure level shifted by a pre-determined relative exposure level corresponding to the selected scene type, and process the final sensor image data to compensate for the exposure level of the final image on the image sensor by using a set of pre- determined exposure compensation processing parameters corresponding to the selected scene type. 2 Appeal2014-008964 Application 13/798,692 The Rejection Claims 1, 3-9, 11-14, and 16-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Konica (JP 2007-288245; Jan. 11, 2007) and Prentice (US 2013/0215314 Al; Aug. 22, 2013) ("AAPA"). ANALYSIS Appellants contend the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 1 because "nowhere does [ AAP A] mention setting the exposure level 'to be a default scene exposure level shifted by a pre-determined relative exposure level corresponding to the selected scene type,' as claimed." Br. 12. Appellants further contend Konica's specifying of photographing scenes based on computed indices of predetermined luminance levels "does not involve shift[ing] a default scene exposure level by a pre-determined relative exposure level." Br. 14--15 (internal quotations omitted). We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument for the following reasons. First, Appellants' argument regarding AAPA is not responsive to the Examiner's findings. The Examiner relies on Konica, not AAPA, as teaching or suggesting setting the exposure level to be a default scene exposure level shifted by a pre-determined relative exposure level corresponding to the selected scene type, as Appellants contend. Final Act. 3. The Examiner relies on AAPA only for the notion "that it is well known in the digital imaging art for digital cameras to use 'smart scene' modes to automatically identify a predetermined scene and adjust the exposure accordingly." Id. Appellants do not challenge this finding. Br. 12. 3 Appeal2014-008964 Application 13/798,692 Second, in response to Appellants' arguments regarding the disputed limitations, the Examiner elaborates: Konica teaches adjusting a previously determined exposure setting to a new exposure setting based on distinguished scenes. These scenes include, at least, backlit scene, light and dark scenes. Each scene requires its own parameters for imaging. When the scene is dark scene a diaphragm value is made large and when the scene is a bright scene a diaphragm is made small. Thus, the exposure level adjusted adjustment is pre-determined based on the detected scene/luminance (i-f 66-67, 94, 168, 208 and 215-221). Ans. 8-9. Appellants do not rebut these findings. In particular, Appellants fail to address why Konica's adjustment of diaphragm size to predetermined luminance levels based on the perceived luminance levels (Konica i166) would not teach or suggest the disputed limitations. Accordingly, on the record before us, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1. Appellants present no further arguments on claims 3-9; 11-14; and 16-20. Accordingly; we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 3-9, 11-14, and 16-20. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decisions rejecting claims 1, 3-9, 11-14, and 16-20. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation