Ex Parte Wernersson

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 17, 2016

13274682 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 17, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/274,682 10/17/2011
54494 7590 10/19/2016
MOORE AND VAN ALLEN PLLC FOR SEMC
P.O. BOX 13706
3015 Carrington Mill Boulevard, Suite 400
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27709
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Mats Wernersson
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.
PSll 0343US2.1135 4537
EXAMINER
JOISIL, BERTEAU
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2487
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/19/2016 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):
iplaw@mvalaw.com
usptomail@mvalaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITEn STATES PATENT ANn TRA.nEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MATS WERNERSSON
Appeal2015-005282
Application 13/274,682
Technology Center 2400
Before HUNG H. BUI, KEVIN C. TROCK, and ADAM J. PYONIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--9, 11-16, and 18-20, which are all pending
claims. See App. Br. 16-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2015-005282
Application 13/274,682
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant's disclosure is directed to "optimizing usage of image
sensors in a stereoscopic environment . . . [such as by] shifting the first
imaging area along a length of the first image sensor area, where the amount
of the shifting is based at least partially on the distance from the camera to
the object." Spec. i-f 2. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent. Claim 1 is
reproduced below for reference:
1. A method for optimizing usage of an image sensor of a
camera, the method comprising:
providing a first image sensor that comprises a first
plurality of pixels, wherein the first image sensor is associated
with a first image sensor area and a first imaging area;
determining a distance from the camera to an object to be
captured by the camera;
determining the distance from the camera to the object is
less than a predetermined threshold; and
in response to determining the distance from the camera to
the object is less than the predetermined threshold, shifting the
first imaging area along a length of the first image sensor area,
wherein the amount of the shifting is based at least partially on
the distance from the camera to the object, wherein the first
imaging area can shift along the entire length of the first image
sensor area.
References and Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 5-9, 12-16, and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kageyama (US 5,960,219; Sept. 28,
1999) and Fuchs (US 2008/0273758 Al; Nov. 6, 2008). Final Act. 4.
2
Appeal2015-005282
Application 13/274,682
Claims 4 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kageyama, Fuchs, and Liao (US 2005/0007482 Al; Jan.
13, 2005). Final Act. 12.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments, and we adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions as our
own to the extent they are consistent with our analysis below. We add the
following primarily for emphasis.
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim
1, because the combination of cited references do not teach or suggest "in
response to determining the distance from the camera to the object is less
than the predetermined threshold, shifting the first imaging area along a
length of the first image sensor area," as claimed. See App. Br. 8-9.
Appellant argues that,
Kageyama does not teach or suggest the features of Claim[] 1 ..
. for two reasons: (1) Kageyama teaches a shifting step leading
to distance determining step, not a distance determining step
leading to a shifting step if the determined distance is less than a
predetermined threshold distance, and (2) Kageyama teaches
shifting a first image sensor area with respect to a second image
sensor area, not shifting a first image sensor imaging area with
respect to a first image sensor area, as recited
(id. at 12). Appellant argues Fuchs does not cure the deficiencies of
Kageyama, because "Fuchs also discloses comparing this measured distance
to a theoretically calculated distance to determine whether both distances are
largely the same. Fuchs does not disclose shifting an imaging area of an
image sensor, and the Office Action does not use Fuchs to teach this feature
either." Id. at 13.
3
Appeal2015-005282
Application 13/274,682
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. The Examiner correctly
finds Kageyama teaches "shifting the first imaging area along a length of the
first image sensor area" as claimed, because Kageyama "calculates distance
data concerning a distance to the object ... by shifting a pair of
corresponding meter areas of the first and second image sensors relative to
each other a set number of pixels." Final Act. 5 (quoting Kageyama 2:37-
54). Appellant's argument that Kageyama does not shift a first image sensor
imaging area "with respect to a first image sensor area" (see App. Br. 12) is
not commensurate with the scope of the claim. In particular, claim 1 does
not require the recited "shifting the first imaging area along a length of the
first image sensor area" to be with respect to a specific sensor, nor does the
claim preclude multiple sensors.
We also agree with the Examiner that Kageyama suggests a shift of
the meter areas is in response to determining the distance is less than a
threshold, as Kageyama discloses the shifting is performed as part of a
"plurality of comparisons between ... the first image sensor and ... the
second image sensor," and the amount of shift is set to "have a smallest
spatial parallax" between the sensors. 1 Kageyama 2:42-52; see also Ans.
12. In contrast, Appellant fails to provide sufficient evidence or reasoning to
persuade us the shifting of Kageyama is not in response to a distance
threshold comparison, within the meaning of the claim. See In re Geisler,
116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); cf In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826
(CCP A 1968) ("[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to
1 Separately, we note Kageyama discloses the multi-spot metering process is
only performed if the object is within a specified short distance from the
camera. See Kageyama Fig. 10; 11:57-12:10.
4
Appeal2015-005282
Application 13/274,682
take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the
inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw
therefrom.").
Further, the Examiner finds Fuchs teaches performing processing in
response to determining a distance, and that "it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to ...
[i]ntegrat[e] the capability of the apparatus of Fuchs into the device of
Kageyama," for the purpose of "optimizing usage of an image sensor of a
camera." Final Act. 6, citing Fuchs Fig. 3 (disclosing a predetermined
distance threshold, e, used to determine processing); see also Fuchs i-f 43
("The determined distance values dM, dH are checked for plausibility"),
i-fi-153-54. Thus, Appellant's argument that "Fuchs does not disclose shifting
an imaging area of an image sensor" (App. Br. 13) is not persuasive for
failing to address the Examiner's findings with respect to the combination of
Kageyama and Fuchs.2 See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)
("The test for obviousness is not ... that the claimed invention must be
expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is
what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to
those of ordinary skill in the art.").
Based on the record before us, we do not find that Appellant has
presented evidence or reasoning sufficient to show that combining the prior
art was "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art"
or "represented an unobvious step over the prior art." Leapfrog Enters., Inc.
2 As we are not persuaded the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 in view of
Kageyama and Fuchs is in error, we do not reach the Examiner's discussion
of Liao with respect to claim 1. See Ans. 13.
5
Appeal2015-005282
Application 13/274,682
v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Accordingly,
we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1, and claims 2, 4--
9, 11-16, and 18-20, which are not separately argued. See App. Br. 14; see
also 37 C.F.R. §41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--9, 11-16, and 18-20 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6