Ex Parte Turley et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 19, 2012

11261276 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 19, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte RICHARD TURLEY, ANDREW C. GORIS,
DAVID BRANSON, DAVID R. LAWSON,
DONALD J. STAVELY, and DAVID K. CAMPBELL
________________

Appeal 2009-014143
Application 11/261,276
Technology Center 2800
________________

Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
JENNIFER S. BISK, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-014143
Application 11/261,276

2
SUMMARY
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-20:
Claims 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Nonaka (US 5,680,648; issued Oct. 21, 1997);
Claims 1-6 and 8-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Nonaka in view of Kubo (US 6,958,779 B2; issued Oct. 25,
2005); and
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Nonaka in view of Kubo and Lehoty (US 7,268,341 B2; issued Sep. 11,
2007).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We review the appealed
rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellants, and in
light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Cf. Ex parte Frye, 94
USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (citing In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445
(Fed. Cir. 1992)).
We reverse.

STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants describe the present invention as follows:
Systems and methods for implementing Z-buffer
generation in a camera are disclosed. In an exemplary
embodiment the method may comprise exposing a plurality of
pixels on an image capture device to a modulated light signal
reflected from different regions of a scene adjacent a camera
after different delays. The method may also comprise
correlating intensity of the modulated light signal received by
the image capture device for each [sic: of] the different delays
to determine a flight time of the modulated light signal. The
Appeal 2009-014143
Application 11/261,276

3
method may also comprise generating a Z-buffer corresponding
to the different regions of the scene based on the correlation.
(Abstract).

CLAIMS 1-10
Independent claim 1 is illustrative of this claim group:
1. A system for generating Z-buffers in a camera,
comprising:
an image capture device having a plurality of pixels;
a variable transmittance shutter opening to expose the
plurality of pixels on the image capture device to a modulated
light signal reflected from different regions of a scene adjacent
the camera during different delay cycles; and
a processor operatively associated with the image capture
device, the processor generating a Z-buffer for the plurality of
pixels based on the modulated light signal reflected from the
different regions of the scene during the different delay cycles.
Contentions1
The Examiner finds that Kubo teaches a variable transmittance shutter
opening to expose the plurality of pixels on the image capture device to a
modulated light signal reflected from different regions of a scene adjacent
the camera during different delay cycles (Ans. 5 (citing Kubo, col. 5, ll. 26-
28)). In so doing, the Examiner interprets the variable-transmittance-shutter
limitation as merely requiring a shutter that opens and closes to expose a
pixel array to a light signal (Ans. 14).

1 Rather than repeat the Examiner’s positions and Appellants’ arguments in
their entirety, we refer to the following documents for their respective
details: the Appeal Brief (App. Br.) filed June 12, 2009; the Examiner’s
Answer (Ans.) mailed October 31, 2008; and the Reply Brief (Reply Br.)
filed December 20, 2008.
Appeal 2009-014143
Application 11/261,276

4
The Examiner further finds that Nonaka teaches exposing the plurality
of pixels on the image capture device to a modulated light signal reflected
from different regions of a scene adjacent the camera during different delay
cycles (Ans. 13-14). More particularly, the Examiner reasons that
since light is reflected off of each point in the scene at a
different time depending on the size, shape and distance to the
object, the lens would detect light after various delays, and
therefore the shutter would pass a delayed version of a
modulated light signal through to the image sensor.
(id.).
Appellants assert, inter alia, that the combination of Nonaka and
Kubo fails to teach or suggest a variable transmittance shutter opening to
expose the plurality of pixels on the image capture device to a modulated
light signal reflected from different regions of a scene adjacent the camera
during different delay cycles (App. Br. 9).
Analysis
A patent applicant is free to recite features of an apparatus either
structurally or functionally. See In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212 (CCPA
1971) (“[T]here is nothing intrinsically wrong with [defining something by
what it does rather than what it is] in drafting patent claims.”). Furthermore,
while functional claim language can be satisfied inherently if a prior art
composition is capable of performing the function, the language cannot be
ignored. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Appellants’ arguments are persuasive. The Examiner has not
demonstrated that the combination of Nonaka and Kubo teaches or suggests
the limitation of a variable transmittance shutter opening to expose the
plurality of pixels on the image capture device to a modulated light signal
Appeal 2009-014143
Application 11/261,276

5
reflected from different regions of a scene adjacent the camera during
different delay cycles, as recited in independent claim 1.
The claim language requires that the variable transmittance shutter be
capable of opening to expose the plurality of pixels on the image capture
device during different delay cycles. The Examiner, however, fails to
explain how the cited shutter of Kubo possesses the capability to open
during different delay cycles. Further, the Examiner establishes that Nonaka
teaches passing delayed light to an image sensor (Ans. 12), but fails to
establish that Nonaka teaches or suggest the implementation of different
delay cycles.
We therefore do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claim 1, or of claims 2-6 and 8-10, which depend from claim 1.
With respect to the remaining rejection of dependent claim 7, the
Examiner does not rely on Lehoty to cure the deficiency of the rejection
explained above. Accordingly, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection
of claim 7 for the reasons noted in relation to independent claim 1.

CLAIMS 11-17
Independent claim 11 is illustrative of this claim group:
11. A method comprising:
exposing a plurality of pixels on an image capture device
to a modulated light signal reflected from different regions of a
scene adjacent a camera after different delays;
correlating intensity of the modulated light signal
received by the image capture device for each the different
delays to determine a flight time of the modulated light signal;
and
Appeal 2009-014143
Application 11/261,276

6
generating a Z-buffer corresponding to the different
regions of the scene based on the correlation.
Contentions
The Examiner finds that Nonaka teaches “correlating intensity of the
modulated light signal received by the image capture device for each the
different delays to determine a flight time of the modulated light signal”
(Ans. 8 (citing Nonaka, col. 6, ll. 10-13)). In particular, the Examiner
reasons that “[t]here would be no way for Nonaka to resolve distance
information without using the basic principle of distance=velocity x time,
which necessitates Nonaka using flight times to determine distance”
(Ans. 17).
Appellants assert, inter alia, that the combination of Nonaka and
Kubo fails to teach or suggest “correlating intensity of the modulated light
signal received by the image capture device for each the different delays to
determine a flight time of the modulated light signal” (App. Br. 15).
Analysis
Appellants’ arguments are persuasive. The Examiner fails to show
that the combination of Nonaka and Kubo teaches or suggests determining a
flight time of a modulated light signal.
Nonaka discloses auto-focusing in a camera using a distance
measurement device (Nonaka, col. 2, ll. 59-63). In Nonaka, the distance
measurement device employs a light emitting section and two optical
position devices, each aligned with separate light-receiving lenses (Nonaka,
col. 5, ll. 55-63). The light emitting section projects light onto an object
within the photographic frame, and the light reflects off of the object to form
light spots on each of the photo sensing devices (Nonaka, col. 6, ll. 7-15).
Nonaka teaches a function for calculating the distance of the object in which
Appeal 2009-014143
Application 11/261,276

7
the input parameters are the incident positions of the lights spots, distances
between the light receiving lenses and their associated position sensing
device, the distance between the light receiving lenses, and the angles
defined by the optical axes of the light receiving lenses and the distance
measuring point (Nonaka, col. 6, ll. 16-46; col. 8, l. 42–col. 9, l. 19). As
such, Nonaka determines distance based upon triangulation of the object.
The Examiner has not pointed to any evidence to support the rejection’s
premise that Nonaka necessarily determines the distance of the object by
determining the flight time of a modulated light signal.
We therefore do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claim 11, or of claims 12-16, which depend from claim 11.

CLAIMS 18-20
Independent claim 18 is illustrative of this claim group:
18. A system comprising:
image capture means for detecting light at the camera
after different delays;
varying transmittance means for transmitting a
modulated light signal reflected from different regions of a
scene adjacent the image capture means; and
means for generating a Z-buffer for the scene based at
least in part on the modulated light signal transmitted onto the
image capture means.
Contentions
The Examiner finds that Nonaka teaches all of the limitations of
independent claim 18 (Ans. 3-4). Appellants assert, inter alia, that Nonaka
fails to disclose varying transmittance means for transmitting a modulated
light signal reflected from different regions of a scene adjacent the image
Appeal 2009-014143
Application 11/261,276

8
capture means (App. Br. 6). More particularly, Appellants contend, “there is
no disclosure that the light receiving lenses 57 and 58 are varying
transmitting means” (id.).
Analysis
Appellants’ arguments are persuasive. The Examiner fails to show
that Nonaka teaches or suggests varying transmittance means for
transmitting a modulated light signal reflected from different regions of a
scene adjacent the image capture means.
The Examiner finds that light receiving lens 57 and light receiving
lens 58 of Nonaka read on varying transmittance means for transmitting a
modulated light signal reflected from different regions of a scene adjacent
the image capture means (Ans. 4 (citing Nonaka, Fig. 16)). The Examiner,
however, fails to proffer any support with regards to how the lenses of
Nonaka provide varying transmittance (id.).
Nor does the Examiner provide any evidence that one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time of the invention would have interpreted a simple lens as
corresponding to a “varying light transmittance means” within the meaning
of claim 18. To the contrary, Appellants’ usage of the terms in the
Specification indicates that a lens does not constitute an example of a
varying light transmittance means. Instead, the Specification distinguishes a
lens from a varying light transmittance means. See Appellants’ Fig. 1; Spec.
¶ [0017] (setting forth “a lens 150 positioned in the camera system 100 to
focus reflected light 145 from the scene 125 through a variable transmittance
shutter 155 (e.g., a high-speed shutter such as, but not limited to, an LCD or
pockel cell) onto an image capture device 160”).
Appeal 2009-014143
Application 11/261,276

9
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of independent claim 18, or of claims 19 and 20,
which depend from claim 18.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20 is reversed.

REVERSED

babc