Ex Parte Silverstein et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 8, 2014

10769652 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 8, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte D. AMNON SILVERSTEIN
and DANIEL R. TRETTER
____________________

Appeal 2012-005570
Application 10/769,652
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and
DAVID M. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judges.

DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-005570
Application 10/769,652

2
STATEMENT OF CASE1
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a Final Rejection
of claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 12, 14, 16, 26-28, 32-36, 38-47, and 52-62. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

Appellants invented a method and system for processing an image
with an image-capturing device. Specification 1:2-4.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below [some paragraphing added]:
1. An image processing method comprising:
sensing a plurality of frames of image data of a scene
using a sensor;
retrieving first and second sub-sets of image data of the
scene from respective different portions of the plurality of
frames of image data;
storing the first and second sub-sets of image data in a
storage component;
generating a first type of image from the first sub-sets of
image data;
generating a second type of image from the second sub-
sets of image data, wherein the first and second types of images
are different;
wherein the second sub-sets of image data comprise a
plurality of high-resolution slices of respective ones of the
plurality of frames of image data, and wherein each of the
plurality of high-resolution slices corresponds to a portion less
than an entirety of a respective one of the plurality of frames;

1 Our decision will make reference to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,”
filed Aug. 22, 2011) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Feb. 21, 2012), and
the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Jan. 18, 2012), and Final Rejection
(“Final Rej.,” mailed Mar. 23, 2011).
Appeal 2012-005570
Application 10/769,652

3
wherein the generating the second type of image
comprises processing the plurality of high-resolution slices to
form a high-resolution still-image; and
wherein at least one of the plurality of high-resolution
slices overlaps another of the plurality of high-resolution slices.

REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Egawa
Kumashiro
Merrill
Needham
Crinon
Chen
Anderson
US 5,138,460
US 5,721,624
US 5,965,875
US 6,133,943
US 6,285,804 B1
US 6,552,744 B2
US 6,657,667 B1
Aug. 11, 1992
Feb. 24, 1998
Oct. 12, 1999
Oct. 17, 2000
Sep. 4, 2001
Apr. 22, 2003
Dec. 2, 2003
Shiomi
Nakayama
US 2002/0044779 A1
US 2004/0141067 A1
Apr. 18, 2002
Jul. 22, 2004
Appeal 2012-005570
Application 10/769,652

4

REJECTIONS2
Claims 1, 26, and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nakayama and Needham.
Claim 34 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nakayama and Egawa.
Claims 1, 26, 33, and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Nakayama and Chen or Anderson.

2 Only the rejection of claims 1, 26, 33, and 34 are the subject of this appeal.
However, we note that the Examiner has submitted the following rejections
in the Final Office Action: Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 26-28, 33, 47, 52,
53, 55, and 57-62 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nakayama and Needham; Claims 5 and 14 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nakayama, Needham,
and Merrill; Claims 16 and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Nakayama, Needham, and Crinon; Claims 54 and
56 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Nakayama, Needham, and Shiomi; Claims 34-36, 38-42, and 44-45 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nakayama and
Egawa; Claim 43 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nakayama, Egawa, and Shiomi; Claim 46 stands rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nakayama, Egawa, and
Kumashiro; Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 26-28, 33-36, 38-42, 44, 45, 47, 52,
53, 55, and 57-62 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nakayama and Chen or Anderson; Claims 5 and 14 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nakayama,
Chen or Anderson, and Merrill; Claims 16 and 32 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nakayama, Chen or
Anderson, and Crinon; Claims 43, 54, and 56 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nakayama, Chen or Anderson, and
Shiomi. We note that Appellants listed claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 12, 14, 16, 26-28,
32-36, 38-47, and 52-62 in the Notice of Appeal as being the subject of the
Appeal dated 06/20/2011. Thus, we summarily sustain the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 2, 3, 5-7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16, 27, 28, 32, 35, 36, 38-47, and
52-62 which were not separately argued.
Appeal 2012-005570
Application 10/769,652

5

ISSUE
The issue of whether the Examiner erred turns on whether the cited
prior art teaches or suggests “the second sub-sets of image data comprise a
plurality of high-resolution slices of respective ones of the plurality of
frames of image data,” as recited in claim 1, and as similarly recited in
claims 26, 33, and 34.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions that the Examiner has erred.
We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. We adopt as our own
(1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from
which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur
with the conclusion reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following
arguments for emphasis.

Claims 1, 26, and 33 rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nakayama and Needham
Appellants contend that the combination of Nakayama and Needham
fails to teach or suggest “the second sub-sets of image data comprise a
plurality of high-resolution slices of respective ones of the plurality of
frames of image data,” as recited in claim 1, and as similarly recited in
claims 26 and 33. App. Br. 11-15 and Reply Br. 1-3. Appellants
specifically argue that Nakayama also fails to disclose more than one high-
Appeal 2012-005570
Application 10/769,652

6
resolution slice for a particular frame. Reply Br. 2. Appellants further argue
that while Needham discloses sensing a narrow strip of the second frame,
Needham fails to disclose more than one slice of a respective frame. Id.
We disagree with Appellants. As pointed out by the Examiner,
Needham is only relied on to teach a “plurality of high-resolution slices
correspond[ing] to a portion less than an entirety of a respective one of the
plurality of the frames.” Ans. 50 (emphasis omitted). Specifically, the
Examiner finds that Needham teaches a “first high-resolution slice (strip
514) is less than the entirety of the first frame (506)” and a “second high-
resolution slice (strip 512) is less than the entirety of the second frame
(frame 508).” Id (citing Needham Fig. 5a-5c; col. 7, ll. 20-67). The second
slice is the same image of the first slice with an offset. Needham Fig. 5a-5c;
col. 7, ll. 20-67. That is, Needham teaches more than one slice of a
respective frame, where each slice is an offset of the composite image. As
such, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Nakayama and
Needham teaches or suggest the limitations of claims 1, 26, and 33.

Claim 34 rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over
Nakayama and Egawa
Appellants contend that the combination of Nakayama and Egawa
fails to teach or suggest “combining still slices that correspond to different
portions of an imaging sensor to form a still image of a scene.” App. Br. 15-
16. We disagree with Appellants.
As found by the Examiner, Egawa teaches this limitation. Ans. 21-22.
The Examiner specifically found that Egawa teaches that slices of different
portions of an image are combined to form an image. Id (citing Figs. 3(a) –
Appeal 2012-005570
Application 10/769,652

7
3(b), 4(a) – 4(b), 5(a) – 5(c), and 6(a) – 6(e)). Here, Egawa teaches that a
composite image in the “finder” is composed of slices of the “nth frame” and
the “(n+1)th frame.” Id. As such, the multiple slices of the same image
were spliced together to form the composite image. Thus, we agree with the
Examiner that the combination of Nakayama and Egawa teaches the
limitations of claim 34.

Claims 1, 26, 33, and 34 rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nakayama and Chen or Anderson
Since we affirm the rejection of claims 1, 26, and 33 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nakayama and Needham and claim 34
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nakayama and Egawa,
we decline to reach the cumulative rejection of claims 1, 26, 33, and 34
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nakayama and Chen or
Anderson.

Claims 2, 3, 5-7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16, 27, 28, 32, 35, 36, 38-47, and 52-62
Appellants did not separately argue claims 2, 3, 5-7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16,
27, 28, 32, 35, 36, 38-47, and 52-62. Accordingly, we summarily sustain the
Examiner’s rejections of these claims.
CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 26, and 33 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Nakayama and Needham.
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 34 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Nakayama and Egawa.
Appeal 2012-005570
Application 10/769,652

8

DECISION
To summarize, our decision is as follows.
 The rejection of claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 12, 14, 16, 26-28, 32-36, 38-47,
and 52-62 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Nakayama
and Needham is sustained.
 The rejection of claim 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Nakayama and Egawa is sustained.

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)(iv) (2010).

AFFIRMED

msc