Ex Parte Spampinato et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 14, 201814278680 (P.T.A.B. May. 14, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 14/278,680 05/15/2014 38106 7590 05/16/2018 Seed IP Law Group LLP/ST (EP ORIGINATING) 701 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 5400 SEATTLE, WA 98104-7092 Giuseppe Spampinato 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. 12-CT-0867US01/810063.408 3486 EXAMINER NOH,JAENAM ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2481 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/16/2018 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): USPTOeAction@SeedIP.com pairlinkdktg@seedip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GIUSEPPE SP AMPINATO and ARCANGELO RANIERI BRUNA Appeal2017-010714 Application 14/278,680 Technology Center 2400 Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JEREMY J. CURCURI and NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges. MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2017-010714 Application 14/278,680 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1-8 and 11-25. Appellants have cancelled claims 9 and 10. App. Br. 37. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Representative Claim Representative claim 1 under appeal reads as follows ( emphases and bracketed material added): 1. A panning device, comprising: [A.] a panning filter, which, in operation, subjects relative motion vectors of a video sequence to panning processmg; [B.] a first leaky integrator coupled to an output of the panning filter, wherein the first leaky integrator, in operation, processes relative motion vectors processed by the panning filter; [C.] an adder coupled to an output of the first leaky integrator, wherein the adder, in operation, adds relative motion vectors output by the first leaky integrator to absolute motion vectors of the video sequence to obtain respective summed values of motion vectors; [D.] clipping circuitry, which, in operation, clips the summed values of motion vectors obtained in said adder based on a cropping window, obtaining output absolute motion vectors; and [E.] a second leaky integrator coupled to an output of the clipping circuitry, which, in operation, processes the output absolute motion vectors. 2 Appeal2017-010714 Application 14/278,680 Rejections on Appeal 1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-5, 11, and 14--25 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Stavely et al. (US 2006/0170783 Al; Aug. 3, 2006) and Cheung et al. (US 2004/0151246 Al; Aug. 5, 2004). 1 2. The Examiner rejected claims 6-8, 12, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Stavely, Cheung, and Spampinato et al. (US 2010/0166300 Al; July 1, 2010). 2 Issue on Appeal Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 as being obvious? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has erred. A. The Examiner finds as to "a panning filter, which, in operation, subjects relative motion vectors of a video sequence to panning processing" in part A. of claim 1: (Stavely Pa0013, "When an active stabilization technique is used, whether motion of an optical element, motion of an 1 The contentions discussed herein as to claim 1 are determinative as to this rejection. Therefore, except for our ultimate decision, we do not discuss claims 2-5, 11, and 14--25 further herein. 2 The contentions discussed herein as to claim 1 are determinative as to this rejection. Therefore, except for our ultimate decision, we do not discuss claims 6-8, 12, and 13 further herein. 3 Appeal2017-010714 Application 14/278,680 electronic array light sensor, or dynamic sensor region selection, the designer of the camera makes a compromise between compensating for camera motion that is assumed to be unintentional camera shake, and allowing for camera motion that is assumed to be intentional composition or framing of a photograph ... ") Final Act. 5. The Examiner also finds as to "an adder coupled to an output of the first leaky integrator ... " in part C. of claim 1: (Stavely Pa0042, "Filter/integrator 503 comprises a high-pass filter so that signal components resulting from high-frequency camera motion are passed through and compensated by sensor position control 507, while signal components resulting from low-frequency camera motion, such as intentional movements of the camera for scene composition, are attenuated. And as has been described, filter/integrator 503 comprises an integrator for converting angular velocity information to angular position information.") Final Act. 5. The Examiner also finds as to "a first leaky integrator ... " in part B. and "a second leaky integrator. .. " in part E. of claim 1: (Stavely Pa0043, "However, because the filtering may not perfectly suppress intentional camera motions from angular position signal 504, some low-frequency motion may be integrated, causing unwanted sensor motion and incorrect scene composition. If the integration were perfect, it would not be possible to correct the scene composition. For this reason, it is desirable that the integration be "leaky". That is, sensor 103 is allowed to drift back toward a nominal or center position so that the scene being photographed is generally centered on the camera's optical axis, as a camera user expects.") Final Act. 5---6. 4 Appeal2017-010714 Application 14/278,680 The Examiner further finds as to "clipping circuitry ... " in part D. of claim 1: (Cheung Pa0024, "The functions of FIG. 2 using the preferred embodiment methods can be performed with digital signal processors (DSPs) or general purpose programmable processors or application specific circuitry (ASIC) or systems on a chip such as both a DSP and RISC processor on the same chip with the RISC processor as controller ... " Cheung Pa0004, "Motion compensation relates successive pictures in a sequence by block-based motion estimation and prediction . . . The search computation can be simplified by restriction to a search window, such as a limit on the magnitude of the motion vector.") Final Act. 6. At pages 6-7 of the Final Action, in light of the above findings, the Examiner concludes: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the teachings of Cheung and apply them on the teachings of Stavely to incorporate the magnitude limiting in Stavely when performing image stabilization in Stavely as taught by Cheung. One would be motivated as implementing limits on the magnitude of the motion vector would eliminate extreme values that would be out of range for processing motion vectors in Stavely as taught by Cheung. Final Act. 6-7. 5 Appeal2017-010714 Application 14/278,680 B. The contentions we discuss are determinative as to the rejections on appeal. Therefore, Appellants' other contentions are not discussed in detail herein. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because: The Examiner [ overlooks and does not address] the actual language of the claim, which recites a particular configuration of a panning filter, a first leaky integrator, an adder, clipping circuitry, and a second leaky integrator. The Examiner has failed to establish even a prima facie case of obviousness for at least this reason. App. Br. 21-22. Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because: [T]he filter/integrator 503 of Stavely appears to process an angular velocity signal coming from a gyroscope to generate an angular position signal. Thus, the integrator 503 of Stavely is not processing relative motion vectors of a video sequence; it is instead processing the output of a gyroscope, a signal proportional to the angular velocity of the camera itself. See, e.g., Stavely at ,r [0040]. Accordingly, the cited portion of Stavely does not disclose a panning filter, which, in operation, subjects relative motion vectors of a video sequence to panning processing, as recited, and the Examiner does not rely on the other references. App. Br. 22. Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because: The filter/integrator 503 of Stavely is itself an integrator, and it is desirable that the integration of the filter be leaky. As 6 Appeal2017-010714 Application 14/278,680 discussed above, the filter/integrator 503 does not process motion vectors of a video sequence. Thus, the cited portion of Stavely fails to disclose "a first leaky integrator coupled to an output of the panning filter, wherein the first leaky integrator, in operation, processes relative motion vectors processed by the panning filter," at least because the filter/integrator 503 of Stavely is not processing motion vectors of a video sequence, assuming for the sake of argument only that it is reasonable to consider the filter/integrator 503 of Stavely as disclosing a leaky integrator coupled to an output of a filter. Thus, claim 1 is allowable over the cited references for at least this additional reason. Moreover, the references do not teach or suggest an adder that "adds relative motion vectors output by the first leaky integrator to absolute motion vectors of the video sequence to obtain respective summed values of motion vectors," as recited by claim 1. In the Advisory Action, the Examiner argues that the filter/integrator 503 of Stavely "includes an integrater [sic] considered to add angular velocity information." Advisory Action at page 2. Appellant respectfully disagrees. Stavely teaches a filter/integrator 503 that, not surprisingly, filters (by a high-pass filter) the angular velocity signal 502 received from the gyroscope 501, and integrates the angular velocity signal to convert "the angular velocity information to angular position information." Stavely does not teach, however, an adder that "adds relative motion vectors output by the first leaky integrator to absolute motion vectors of the video sequence to obtain respective summed values of motion vectors," as recited by claim 1. App. Br. 22-23. Appellants further contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because: With regard to the "second leaky integrator coupled to an output of the clipping circuitry," the Examiner points to 7 Appeal2017-010714 Application 14/278,680 paragraph 43 of Stavely. The Examiner does not identify any particular element of Stavely as allegedly corresponding to the recited "second leaky integrator." Paragraph 43 of Stavely again describes the operation of the filter/integrator 503 of Stavely, which the Examiner has identified as corresponding to the first leaky integrator. Indeed, in the Advisory Action (at page 2), the Examiner admits that Stavely' s single filter/integrator 503 is being cited as allegedly teaching both of the claimed first and second leaky integrators. This interpretation is clearly flawed not only because Appellant's claimed first and second leaky integrators are separate elements, but also because the Examiner clearly disregards the specific arrangement and functionality of Appellant's claimed first and second leaky integrators. . .. Stavely's single filter/integrator 503 does not teach or suggest [the claim] features. Thus, claim 1 is allowable for at least the additional reason that Stavely does not disclose a second leaky integrator as recited. App. Br. 24. C. As articulated by the Federal Circuit, the Examiner's burden of proving non-patentability is by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re Caveney, 761 F.2d 671, 674 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ("preponderance of the evidence is the standard that must be met by the PTO in making rejections"). "A rejection based on section 103 clearly must rest on a factual basis[.]" In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). "The Patent Office has the initial duty of supplying the factual basis for its rejection. It may not ... resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in its factual basis." Id. We conclude, consistent with Appellants' arguments, the Examiner's analysis fails to meet this standard because the rejections do not adequately explain the Examiner's findings of fact. Particularly, the findings that the 8 Appeal2017-010714 Application 14/278,680 prior art discloses the argued "relative motion vectors," "absolute motion vectors," "processing motion vectors of a video sequence," and "second leaky integrator," based upon the Examiner's prior art citations to Stavely and Cheung, are erroneous at least because Stavely's camera motion does not disclose processing relative motion vectors of a video sequence as claimed. Therefore, we conclude that there is insufficient articulated reasoning to support the Examiner's final conclusion that claim 1 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellants' invention. CONCLUSIONS (1) Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-8 and 11-25 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). (2) On this record, the Examiner has not shown claims 1-8 and 11-25 to be unpatentable. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-8 and 11-25. REVERSED 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation