Ex Parte Turley et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 28, 2010

11261109 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 28, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

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

Appeal 2009-009410
Application 11/261,109
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, LANCE LEONARD BARRY, and
JAY P. LUCAS, Administrative Patent Judges.

DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.

Appeal 2009-009410
Application 11/261,109

2
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final
Rejection of claims 1-26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We Affirm-In-Part.

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
The invention at issue on appeal relates to a method and system for
generating Z-buffers in cameras (Spec. 1).
The Illustrative Claims
Claims 1 and 14, the illustrative claims, read as follows:
1. A system for Z-buffer generation in a camera, comprising:
a light source generating a plurality of modulated light
signals at the camera, the light source configured to generate
each of the plurality of modulated light signals having a
different correlation code to uniquely identify individual light
signals;
a single-element light sensor receiving the plurality of
modulated light signals generated at the camera after the
modulated light signals are reflected from different regions of a
scene adjacent the camera; and
a processor operatively associated with the single-
element light sensor, the processor identifying the light signals
using the correlation codes and determining distance
information for the different regions of the scene based on the
plurality of modulated light signals reflected from the scene for
generating a Z-buffer.
Appeal 2009-009410
Application 11/261,109

3
14. A method comprising:
actuating a light sensor after various delays to receive a
plurality of modulated light signals reflected from different
regions of a scene adjacent a camera;
determining distance information for the different regions
of the scene based on brightness values for the plurality of
modulated light signals reflected from the scene for the various
delays; and
storing the distance information in a Z-buffer at the
camera.
The References
The Examiner relies on the following references as evidence:
Nonaka US 5,680,648 Oct. 21, 1997
Ray US 6,856,355 B1 Feb. 15, 2005
Lehoty US 7,268,341 B2 Sep. 11, 2007
The Rejections
The following rejections are before us for review:
Claims 14, 17, and 19-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Nonaka.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 13, and 24-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Ray.
Claims 15 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Nonaka and Lehoty.
Claims 18, 22, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Nonaka.
Appeal 2009-009410
Application 11/261,109

4
Claims 4 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Ray and Lehoty.
Claims 9-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ray.
Only those arguments actually made by the Appellants have been
considered in this decision. Arguments which the Appellants could have
made but chose not to make in the Briefs have not been considered and are
deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(1)(vii) (2008).

II. ISSUES
Has the Examiner erred in finding that Nonaka discloses “determining
distance information for the different regions of the scene based on
brightness values” as recited in claim 14?
Has the Examiner erred in finding that Ray discloses “the processor
identifying the light signals using the correlation codes and determining
distance information for the different regions of the scene based on the
plurality of modulated light signals reflected from the scene for generating
a Z-buffer,” as recited in claim 1?

III. PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Claim Interpretation
The claim construction analysis begins with the words of the claim.
See Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir.
Appeal 2009-009410
Application 11/261,109

5
1996). Absent an express intent to impart a novel meaning to a claim term,
“the words are presumed to take on the ordinary and customary meanings
attributed to them by those of ordinary skill in the art.” Brookhill-Wilk 1,
LLC. v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
(citation omitted).
“Giving claims their broadest reasonable construction ‘serves the
public interest by reducing the possibility that claims, finally allowed, will
be given broader scope than is justified.’” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr.,
367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d
1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). “An essential purpose of patent examination
is to fashion claims that are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous. Only
in this way can uncertainties of claim scope be removed, as much as possible,
during the administrative process.” In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 322 (Fed. Cir.
1989). “Construing claims broadly during prosecution is not unfair to the
applicant . . . because the applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims
to obtain more precise claim coverage.” 367 F.3d at 1364.
Anticipation
“[A]nticipation of a claim under § 102 can be found only if the
prior art reference discloses every element of the claim . . . .” In re King,
801 F.2d 1324, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing Lindemann Maschinenfabrik
GMBH v. Am. Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1457 (Fed. Cir. 1984)).
“[A]bsence from the reference of any claimed element negates
anticipation.” Kloster Speedsteel AB v. Crucible, Inc., 793 F.2d 1565,
Appeal 2009-009410
Application 11/261,109

6
1571 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citation omitted). In rejecting claims under 35
U.S.C. § 102, “[a] single prior art reference that discloses, either expressly
or inherently, each limitation of a claim invalidates that claim by
anticipation.” Perricone v. Medicis Pharm. Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375-
76 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).
Obviousness
“Obviousness is a question of law based on underlying findings of
fact.” In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The underlying
factual inquiries are: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the
differences between the prior art and the claims at issue; (3) the level of
ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and (4) secondary considerations of
nonobviousness. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007)
(citation omitted).

IV. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following findings of fact (FFs) are supported by a preponderance
of the evidence.
Nonaka
1. Nonaka discloses a method and system for detecting distance
through a stereo detector and the position of the incidental light beams (Fig.
2):
Assume that a signal light beam is incident on the PSD
30 having a width t at a position x, as shown in FIG. 5. The two
Appeal 2009-009410
Application 11/261,109

7
output currents i1 and i2 are dependent on the beam position x
and the width t and satisfy the following relation:
[i]1/(i1+i2) = x/t (5)
(col. 7, l. 64-col. 8, l. 1) (emphasis added).
With the circuit having the above arrangement, the output
currents i1 and i2 from the PSD 30 are related to a current IINT as
follows:
IINT = (i1/(i1 + i2)) x I0 (6)
= (x/t)I0
The current IINT is integrated by the integral capacitor 40 for a
predetermined period of time. Therefore, by detecting a voltage
at the terminal 42, the CPU 1 can calculate the incident
position x of the signal light beam according to the following
equation:
x=tIINT /I0 (6')
(col. 8, ll. 22-35) (emphasis added).
Ray
2. Ray discloses an image capture device 34 (Fig. 8), such as a
Charge-Coupled Device (CCD) (col. 4, l. 67-col. 5, l. 2).
3. Ray further discloses that the distance/range is estimated by a
processor 36 using the intensity value and the phase offset (Fig. 8):
The processing of the image bundle 90 is described in
FIG. 7. The range images 92 of the bundle 90 and the color
texture image 94 are combined to form a color image with a
Appeal 2009-009410
Application 11/261,109

8
dense set of range values, that is, where range values are
associated with a preponderance of, or all, image pixel
locations. The range images 92 contained in the image bundle
90 are used to determine the range estimates for each pixel in
the image. The process begins with the opening of the image
bundle (S100), and the initializing of internal parameters,
including the number of range images, the number of pixels to
be processed and the modulation frequency of the camera
system. A processing loop is then entered that operates on the
image in a pixel-wise fashion. After the range map is opened
(S102), the first step is to estimate the range (S104) for the (i,
j)th pixels. For each pixel location (i, j), the range is estimated
by sampling each range image at its (i, j)th pixel location and
performing the aforementioned calculation. The pixel intensity
values and the phase offset used in producing the image in the
image bundle are matched. The aforementioned equations (1)-
(9) describe a method of estimating range using an image
bundle with at least three images corresponding to distinct
phase offsets of the intensifier and/or laser. Moreover, it is well
known that there is a sinusoidal relationship between the
intensity values and the phase offset. By fitting the data to a
sine-wave of the form α + β sin(φ+ω) then the range can be
estimated. . . .

(col. 10, ll. 11-36, fig.7) (emphases added).
4. Ray also discloses that “[t]he image capture system requires
image storage means to store all range image[] 92” (col. 7, ll. 60-61).
5. Ray also discloses that the controller 80 with a processor 87 is
in sequencing and controlling the illumination with the control line 84 and
the light capture with the remote trigger line 82 with phase offsets/delay
(Abstract, col. 9, ll. 51-65, figs.1 & 6).
Appeal 2009-009410
Application 11/261,109

9

V. ANALYSIS
The Appellants have the opportunity on appeal to the Board of Patent
Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) to demonstrate error in the Examiner’s
position. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing In re
Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998). The Examiner sets forth a
detailed explanation of a reasoned conclusion of unpatentability in the
Examiner’s Answer. Therefore, we look to Appellants’ Briefs to show error
therein. Id.
Grouping of Claims
The Appellants have elected to argue claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 13, and 24-
26 together as a group for the Ray reference (App. Br. 8). Therefore, we
select independent claim 1 as the representative claim for the group, and
we will address the Appellants’ arguments with respect thereto. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37 (c)(1)(vii). See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572 (Fed. Cir.
1987).
35 U.S.C. § 102 rejections
We start our review by determining the appropriate scope of the
argued claim limitations in the independent claims.
First, the claims themselves do not define the argued terms.
Therefore, we must construe the terms with broad yet reasonable
interpretations.
Appeal 2009-009410
Application 11/261,109

10
Furthermore, in light of the breadth of Appellant’s Specification, we
broadly but reasonably construe the claim limitation “brightness value” as
any value of brightness or intensity of light; the claim limitation “correlation
code” as any numerical number or code correlating or identifying different
light signals ; the claim limitation “single-element light sensor” as any light
sensor with one element; and the claim limitation “Z-buffer” as a buffer or
memory storing distance/range information because there is no limitation in
the claim language to prevent us from reading the language broadly.
We now address the merits of the Appellant’s contentions under our
claim construction.
With respect to claim 14, the Appellants contend that in the equation
6’ of the Nonaka reference, “where Nonaka defines x as the incident position
of the signal light beam, t as time, I0 as current from constant-current source
37, and IINT as a current relating [to] i1 and i2. There is no disclosure,
however, of determining distance information for the different regions of the
scene based on brightness values.” (App. Br. 7).
We agree with the Appellants’ contention. We find Nonaka teaches
that the currents i1 and i2 are the currents corresponding to the position of
incidental light beam x (FF 1), and they do not relate to the brightness value
or intensity value of the incidental light beam. Thus, IINT, a current relating
to i1 and i2, does not relate to the brightness value as required by claim
limitation. As such, we can not sustain the anticipation rejection of claim 14
under 35 U.S.C. § 102. The rejection of dependent claims 17 and 19-21
Appeal 2009-009410
Application 11/261,109

11
contains the same deficiency. We, therefore, can not sustain the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection of claims 14, 17, and 19-21.
With respect to claim 1, the Appellants contend that in the Ray
reference, “there is no disclosure of a different correlation code to uniquely
identify individual light signals, nor of the processor identifying the light
signals using the correlation codes.” (App. Br. 9). The Appellant further
contend that “the image capture device 40 can not be properly interpreted as
a single-element light sensor” (App. Br. 9) and “a CCD is by definition a
multi-element sensor (i.e., each element representing a separate pixel.)”
(Reply Br. 4-5).
We disagree with the Appellants’ contentions. We find Ray teaches a
CCD device that reads on the claim limitation “single-element light sensor”
(FF 2). We also find that the phase offset disclosed by Ray can be read on
the correlation code as required by claim 1 because the phase offset is either
integers or real numbers for fitting the sin curve with the intensity values to
generate the range data by a processor 36 (FF 3).
Therefore, based on the record before us, we find the Appellants have
not shown that the Examiner has erred.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of representative
claim 1 as being anticipated by Ray under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Independent
claim 24 contains similar limitations, and the Appellants present similar
arguments thereto. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation
rejection of independent claim 24.
Appeal 2009-009410
Application 11/261,109

12
We also sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of dependent
claims 8, and 25-26, which have not been separately argued. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37 (c)(1)(vii)(2008). In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572 (Fed. Cir.
1987).
With respect to claim 2, the Appellants contend that the Z-buffer is
different from storing means for the range image (App. Br. 10, Reply Br. 5).
We disagree with the Appellants’ contention. We find Ray teaches storing
means for storing range information that reads on the Z-buffer. Therefore,
we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of dependent claim 2.
With respect to claim 3, the Appellants contend that Ray reference
does not disclose “the different correlation code for a corresponding
autocorrelation function executable by the processor,” as recited in claim 3.
(App. Br. 10-11, Reply Br. 5).
We disagree with the Appellants’ contention. We find Ray teaches
that a range processor 36 executes the data fitting (autocorrelation function)
for estimating the range data based on phase offsets (correlation code) that
each of the plurality of modulated light signals has different phase offset
(correlation code) (FF 3). Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation
rejection of dependent claim 3.
With respect to claim 5, the Appellants contend that Ray does not
teach a programmable delay line (App. Br. 11).
We disagree with the Appellants’ contention. We find Ray teaches
that a controller 80 with a processor 87 (programmed) to actuate the light
Appeal 2009-009410
Application 11/261,109

13
capture device with a remote trigger line 82 corresponding to various phase
delays (FF 5). The processor controlled the trigger line 82 reads on the
disputed limitation. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation
rejection of dependent claim 5.
With respect to claim 6, the Appellants contend that “there is no
disclosure of ‘comparing a brightness value for each of the plurality of
modulated light signals received at the single-element light sensor to
determine the distance information’” in the Ray reference (Replay Br. 6).
We disagree with the Appellants’ contention. We find Ray teaches
that the intensity values (brightness values) and the phase offset are
compared and fitted to the sin( ) function to determine the distance
information (FF 3). Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation
rejection of dependent claim 6.
With respect to claim 13, the Appellants contend that Ray, in the cited
paragraph by the Examiner, does not teach “modifying the distance
information based on distance information stored in the Z-buffer to reduce
noise effects on the distance information.” (App. Br. 12).
We agree with the Appellants’ contention. We do not find that Ray
teaches modifying the distance information based on distance information
stored in the Z-buffer to reduce noise effects on the distance information.
As such, we can not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim
13.

Appeal 2009-009410
Application 11/261,109

14
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections
With respect to dependent claims 15, 16, 18, 22, and 23, as we found
above in our discussion with respect to independent claim 14, we similarly
find that the rejection of dependent claims 15, 16, 18, 22, and 23 also
contains the same deficiency. We, therefore, cannot sustain the rejection of
claims 15, 16, 18, 22, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
With respect to claim 10, the Appellants contend that the Examiner
admits that Ray does not teach the disputed limitations, and contend that
simply because the claim citation may improve control and/or efficiency it
does not satisfy the required showing for the recited claim limitations. (App.
Br. 17).
We agree with the Appellants’ contention. A motivation to combine
the prior art does not relieve the initial burden of factually supporting
requisite showing of obviousness required to be shown by the Examiner.
Furthermore, the improvement of illumination could be in many ways and it
does not have to be the exact way required by the claim language. Finally,
even though Ray teaches a light source emitting a phase delayed lights, we
do not find and the Examiner does not indicate where in the Ray reference it
teaches the claim limitations, i.e., a plurality of lights, each of the lights
emitting different modulated light signals for different regions of the scene
simultaneously. We, therefore, cannot sustain the rejection of claim 10
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appeal 2009-009410
Application 11/261,109

15
With respect to claims 11 and 12, as discussed above in claim 10, we
find that the Examiner has not made a requisite showing of obviousness as
required to reject the claims 11 and 12. We, therefore, find the Examiner’s
position is untenable.
Accordingly, we can not sustain the rejection of claims 11 and 12
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
With respect to claims 4, 7, and 9, we sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of dependent claims 4, 7, and 9, which are not
separately argued, fall with their base claims.

VI. CONCLUSION
We conclude that the Examiner erred in finding that Nonaka discloses
“determining distance information for the different regions of the scene
based on brightness values” as recited in claim 14.
We conclude that the Examiner has not erred in finding that Ray
discloses “the processor identifying the light signals using the correlation
codes and determining distance information for the different regions of the
scene based on the plurality of modulated light signals reflected from the
scene for generating a Z-buffer,” as recited in claim 1.

VII. ORDER
We reverse the anticipation rejection of claims 14, 17, and 19-21
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Appeal 2009-009410
Application 11/261,109

16
We reverse the obviousness rejections of claims 10-12, 15-16, 18, 22,
and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We affirm the anticipation rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, and 24-26
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
We affirm the obviousness rejections of claim 4, 7, and 9 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
We reverse the anticipation rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136 (a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

llw

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ADMINISTRATION
3404 E. HARMONY ROAD
MAIL STOP 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528