11245563 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 19, 2016)

Ex Parte Robinson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 19, 2016

11245563 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 111245,563 10/07/2005 76137 7590 08/23/2016 RICOH/FENWICK SILICON VALLEY CENTER 801 CALIFORNIA STREET MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA 94041 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR M. Dirk Robinson 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. 20412-10508 3696 EXAMINER GEBRESILASSIE, KIBROM K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2128 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/23/2016 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): PTOC@FENWICK.COM PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITEn STATES PATENT ANn TF~A.nEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte M. DIRK ROBINSON and DAVID G. STORK Appeal2015-000245 Application 11/245,563 Technology Center 2100 Before HUNG H. BUI, ADAM J. PYONIN, and NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1--4, 7-30, and 33, which are all pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal2015-000245 Application 11/245,563 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants' disclosure is directed to joint optics and image processing adjustments of electro-optic imaging systems. See Title. Claims 1, 26, 27, and 33 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference: 1. A method for mechanically adjusting an electro-optic imaging system that forms an image of a source, the method compnsmg: determining propagation of a signal from the source through the electro-optic imaging system to form a digital image; the electro-optic imaging system comprising an optical subsystem, a detector subsystem and a digital image processing subsystem; the optical subsystem comprising at least one optical element with rotationally symmetric image-forming surfaces and a mechanical compensator for moving the optical element within the optical subsystem; the step of determining propagation of a signal from a source through the electro-optic imaging system comprising determining propagation of the signal from the source through the optical subsystem, through the detector subsystem and through the digital image processing subsystem to form the digital image; determining a post-processing performance metric that is a function of the digital image; and jointly adjusting (a) the mechanical compensator in the optical subsystem to move the image-forming surfaces, and (b) the digital image processing subsystem; said adjustment based directly on the determined post- processing performance metric, and the adjustment of the digital image processing subsystem compensating for image degradation effects caused intentionally by the movement of the image-forming surfaces. 2 Appeal2015-000245 Application 11/245,563 References and Rejections Claims 1--4, 7-26, and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dowski '673 (US 7,180,673 B2; Feb. 20, 2007) and Dowski '202 (US 7,469,202 B2; Dec. 23, 2008). Final Act. 5. Claims 27-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dowski '673, Dowski '202, and Appellants' Admitted Prior Art ("AAPA"). Final Act. 15. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments. We adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions (see Final Act. 5-18; Advisory Action; Ans. 2-8) as our own, and we add the following primarily for emphasis. A. Rotationally Symmetric Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1, because "there is no support for the proposition that Dow ski's phase [filter] elements are rotationally symmetric" as required by the claim, as "one of Dowski' s filters is rotated relative to another .... [which] proves the filters are not and cannot be rotationally symmetric." App. Br. 4-5. Additionally, Appellants argue that [i]n order to maintain [the] rejection, [Dowski '673's] two phase filters must be permanently kept at this relative rotation of ~ = 90 degrees .... However, this is both the exact opposite of what Dowski intends and, more importantly, it also does not meet the other limitations in claim 1 which recite that the rotationally symmetric image-forming surfaces are moved. Reply Br. 5. 3 Appeal2015-000245 Application 11/245,563 We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Dowski '6 73 teaches "at least one optical element with rotationally symmetric ... surfaces," as recited in claim 1. During prosecution, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Here, Appellants' Specification provides no limiting definition of "rotationally symmetric." 1 See Spec. ,-i,-i 3, 69. Therefore, Appellants do not persuade us the Examiner erred in finding the "rotationally symmetric" limitation of claim 1 reasonably encompasses the prior art filters, which are taught by Dowski '673 to be symmetric upon a certain amount of rotation. See Ans. 3-4; see also Dowski '673 5:62-67, 6:40-67, 10:52-54, 11 :40-50. Further, we agree with the Examiner that Dowski '673 teaches "when the [filter rotation] angle is 90, the non-rotationally symmetric terms reduce to zero ... and therefore [the surfaces are] equivalent to the 'rotationally symmetric' as claimed." Ans. 4 (citing Dowski'683 6:63-7: 12). Dowski '673 teaches moving the filters both by "rotation and/or translation" (Dowski '673 Abstract); thus we find unavailing Appellants' argument that Dowski '673 "does not meet the other limitations in claim 1 which recite that the rotationally symmetric image-forming surfaces are moved" (Reply Br. 5), at least because one of ordinary skill would move the filters by translation when the rotational angle is 90 degrees. See Ans. 3-4. Additionally, Appellants' arguments regarding movement of rotationally symmetric surfaces are unpersuasive for not being commensurate with the 1 For example, the Specification does not describe-nor does the claim recite-the order of the rotational symmetry of the surfaces. 4 Appeal2015-000245 Application 11/245,563 scope of claim 1, which recites movement of the image forming surfaces separately from the recitation of rotational symmetry of the image forming surfaces. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Dowski '673 teaches the claimed rotationally symmetric surfaces, and we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 on this ground. 2 B. Image Forming Surfaces Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1 because "Dowski' s phase filters are used to encode an incoming wavefront, and not for image formation" and, as such, "are not image-forming elements" as claimed. App. Br. 6. Particularly, Appellants contend "[a Jn optical imaging system may have many components which are not image- forming .... Dowski's phase filters fall in this category." Reply Br. 6. We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. Appellants' Specification does not provide a limiting definition of "image forming surfaces," nor do Appellants provide persuasive reasoning or evidence to support the proposition that the claim limitation precludes the teachings of the cited references. 3 Rather, as the filters of Dowski '673 have surfaces and "are parts of the optical image system that produces the final image of an object," we agree with the Examiner that "these components [have] image forming 2 As we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the filter( s) of Dowski '673 teach the claimed "at least one optical element with rotationally symmetric ... surfaces," we do not reach Appellants' arguments regarding other optical elements of the cited references. See App. Br. 6-7. 3 Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence. See In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139--40 (Fed. Cir. 1996); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974). 5 Appeal2015-000245 Application 11/245,563 surfaces," within the meaning of the claim. Ans. 5; see also Dowski'673 Figs. 1, 4. CONCLUSION Accordingly, we do not find the Examiner erred in finding the cited references teach all limitations of independent claim 1, or claims 2--4, 7-30, and 33, not separately argued. See 37 C.F.R. Â§41.37(c)(l)(iv). DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 1--4, 7-30, and 33 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ l.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 6