Ex Parte Raghavan et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 7, 201613472032 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 7, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/472,032 05/15/2012 61962 7590 06/07/2016 FAY SHARPE LLP I XEROX - PARC 1228 EUCLID A VENUE, 5TH FLOOR THE HALLE BUILDING CLEVELAND, OH 44115 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Ajay Raghavan 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. 20111314USNP-XERZ202850US 5528 EXAMINER SELBY, GEVELL V ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2664 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 06/07/2016 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 AJAY RAGHA VAN, JUAN LIU, and ROBERT R. PRICE Appeal2015-000732 Application 13/472,032 Technology Center 2600 Before JOYCE CRAIG, MATTHEW J. McNEILL, and SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges. CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 9, 11-16, and 20. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is PALO AL TO RESEARCH CENTER INCORPORATED. App. Br. 1. 2 The Examiner objected to claims 3-8, 10, and 17-19 as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but indicated they would be allowable if rewritten in independent form. Final Act. 5. Appeal2015-000732 Application 13/472,032 fNVENTION Appellants' invention relates to flash characterization for a camera. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative and reads as follows: 1. A method for characterizing a functionality of a flash from at least one image captured with a camera using the flash, said method comprising: analyzing the image, said analyzing of the image compnsmg: segmenting the image into at least one sub-region; and applying a metric to the sub-region to measure an image property within the sub-region; and determining how functional the flash is, in response to a result of the applied metric. REJECTION Claims 1, 2, 9, 11-16, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Takeshita (US 2005/0195290 Al; published Sept. 8, 2005). ANALYSIS We have considered Appellants' arguments, but do not find them persuasive of error. We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner's findings of facts and conclusions as set forth in the Answer and in the Action from which this appeal was taken. We provide the following explanation for emphasis. With respect to claim 1, Appellants contend the cited portions of Takeshita do not describe the step "determining how functional the flash is, in response to a result of the applied metric," recited in claim 1. App. Br. 4. Appellants argue that Takeshita teaches determining the evenness or 2 Appeal2015-000732 Application 13/472,032 unevenness of illumination produced on an object, which is not strictly a function of how operative the flash is. Id. at 4--5. In response, the Examiner explains that, because claim 1 does not specifically define the type of functionality of the flash or how such functionality is evaluated, claim 1 is broad enough to encompass determining the functionality of the flash in terms of the uniformity of light, as disclosed by Takeshita. Ans. 5. Appellants have not persuasively shown that the Examiner's interpretation of "determining the functionality of the flash" is overly broad, unreasonable, or inconsistent with the Specification. We agree with the Examiner's reasonable interpretation of "determining the functionality of the flash" and find it consistent with Appellants' description in the Specification that "degradation and/or failure" of a flash "may result in insufficient illumination of the target object in the captured image .... " See Spec. i-f 3. We also observe that, in one embodiment of Appellants' invention, the metric measures contrast within a segment of the image to determine the functionality of the flash. Id. at i-f 26; see also App. Br. 9 (dependent claim 5). Appellants have not sufficiently distinguished measuring contrast, as described in the Specification and dependent claim 5, from measuring uniformity of light, as disclosed in Takeshita. For these reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that Takeshita teaches the limitations of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of independent claim 1, as well as the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of independent claim 16, which Appellants argue is patentable for similar reasons. App. Br. 4--6. We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of 3 Appeal2015-000732 Application 13/472,032 dependent claims 2, 9, 11-15, and 20, for which Appellants make no additional arguments. Id. at 6. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 2, 9, 11-16, and 20 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)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation