Ex Parte Sawachi

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 12, 2016

13503295 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 12, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/503,295 04/20/2012
127226 7590 08/16/2016
Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP
P.O. Box 747
Falls Church, VA 22040-0747
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Y ouichi Sawachi
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.
6117-0137PUS1 2460
EXAMINER
KIM, HEE-YONG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2482
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/16/2016 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):
mailroom@bskb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YOUICHI SAW ACRI
Appeal2015-003205
Application 13/503,295
Technology Center 2400
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CARLL. SILVERMAN, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOW ARD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1---6, 8, 10-15, 17, and 18. Claims 7, 9, and 16 are
"objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be
allowable if rewritten in independent form." Final Act. 10. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify Fujifilm Corporation as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 1.
Appeal2015-003205
Application 13/503,295
THE INVENTION
The claimed invention is directed to an image processing device,
imaging device, and image processing method. Specifically, the image
processing device acquires stereoscopic images and displays moving
stereoscopic when the zoom value is constant and still stereoscopic images
when the zoom value is varying. Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below with the dispute limitation in italics, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An image processing device comprising:
an image acquisition part that acquires a stereoscopic
image including a plurality of viewpoint images;
a zoom value acquisition part that acquires a zoom value;
an electronic zoom part that performs magnification of the
stereoscopic image acquired by the image acquisition part
through image processing on the basis of the zoom value
acquired by the zoom value acquisition part;
an output part capable of outputting the stereoscopic
image magnified by the electronic zoom part; and
a control part that outputs the stereoscopic image
immediately before or immediately after a change in the zoom
value to the output part as a stereoscopic still image magnified
by the electronic zoom part while the zoom value acquired by the
zoom value acquisition part is varying, and outputs the
stereoscopic image acquired by the image acquisition part to the
output part as a stereoscopic moving image while the zoom value
is not varying.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Katoh us 5,436,682 July 25, 1995
Montgomery US 6,512,892 Bl Jan.28,2003
2
Appeal2015-003205
Application 13/503,295
Namba
Mashitani
Kenya
US 2009/0174765 Al
US 2011/0193861 Al
JP 8-317,429 A
REJECTIONS
July 9, 2009
Aug. 11, 2011
( eff. filing date Mar.
27,2003)
Nov. 29, 1996
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kenya in view ofNamba. Final
Act. 4--8.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kenya in view ofNamba and Katoh. Final Act. 8-9.
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kenya in view ofNamba and Montgomery. Final Act. 9-
10.
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kenya in view ofNamba, ~v1ontgomery, and ~v1ashitani.
Final Act. 10.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellant's
arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we have
considered all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellant. We
are persuaded by Appellant's arguments regarding the pending claims that,
based on the record and arguments before us, the Examiner erred.
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding the prior art teaches or
suggests the claimed control part recited in claim 1 that outputs a
3
Appeal2015-003205
Application 13/503,295
stereoscopic moving image when the zoom value is not varying and a
stereoscopic still image magnified by the electronic zoom when the zoom
value is varying. App. Br. 6-11; Reply Br. 3---6. According to Appellant,
"there is no description regarding acquisition of zoom value and switching
of displaying image due to whether the zoom value is varying or not." App.
Br. 6. Although Appellants agree that Kenya "discloses acquiring an image
after zoom processing[,] Kenya is completely silent on acquisition of zoom
value and switching of displaying image based on whether the zoom value is
varying or not." Reply Br. 3; see also App. Br. 7 ("At best, Kenya only
teaches acquiring an image after zoom processing. In other words, there is
no description regarding acquisition of zoom value and switching of
displaying image due to whether the zoom value is varying or not.").
The Examiner finds Kenya teaches the recited control part. Final Act.
4--5 (citing Kenya Fig. 2); Ans. 12-13 (citing Kenya i-f 9). The Examiner
also finds that "it was a common practice that zoom value is gradually
changed to the final one." Final Act. 4; Ans. 12-13 ("It was a common
practice at the time of the invention that zoom value is gradually changed to
the final one while a user keeps changing zoom by watching the zoomed
outputs until he likes to have the appropriately zoomed output."). The
Examiner further finds that the recited control part is inherently disclosed
"because a zoom value m is input to the zoom module 14 and therefore it is
not fixed, and displays the zoomed stereoscopic output (left and right
zoomed images as output of the zoom module 14) for each zoom value."
Ans. 12.
We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments as the Examiner has not
identified sufficient evidence or provided sufficient explanation as to how
4
Appeal2015-003205
Application 13/503,295
Kenya teaches "a control part that outputs ... a stereoscopic still image
magnified by the electronic zoom part while the zoom value acquired by the
zoom value acquisition part is varying, and outputs ... a stereoscopic
moving image while the zoom value is not varying," as recited in claim 1.
The specific paragraph and figure of Kenya cited by the Examiner are silent
as to having a different type of stereoscopic image outputted depending on
whether or not the zoom value is varying or not. 2
According! y, we are constrained on this record not to sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claim 1, along with the rejections of claim 18, which
recites a limitation commensurate in scope to the disputed limitation
discussed above, and dependent claims 2---6, 8, 10-15, and 17.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner's decisions rejecting
claims 1---6, 8, 10-15, 17, and 18.
REVERSED
2 Because we agree with at least one of the dispositive arguments advanced
by Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant's other arguments.
5