11357631 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 31, 2012)

Ex Parte Wong et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 31, 2012

11357631 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 31, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 11/357,631 02/16/2006 Earl Q. Wong SONY-30800 5959 7590 01/02/2013 Jonathan O. Owens HAVERSTOCK & OWENS LLP 162 North Wolfe Road Sunnyvale, CA 94086 EXAMINER PERKEY, WILLIAM B ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2852 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/02/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte EARL Q. WONG, MAKIBI NAKAMURA, HIDENORI KUSHIDA, and SOROJ TRITEYAPRASERT ____________ Appeal 2010-007801 Application 11/357,631 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges. DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-007801 Application 11/357,631 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-11, 13, 15-20, 22, 23, and 25-30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. The claims are directed to generating a depth map by capturing multiple blurred images. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A system for generating a depth map comprising: a. a single lens for obtaining an externally generated signal, wherein the signal comprises a blurred image; b. a splitter for splitting the signal into a plurality of signals, wherein the plurality of signals are simultaneously output from the splitter; c. a plurality of sensors for receiving the plurality of signals, wherein the plurality of sensors are each a different distance from the splitter, further wherein the signal is received at the splitter directly from the single lens to generate the plurality of signals which are directly received at the plurality of sensors; and d. a depth map generation module for generating a depth map from the plurality of signals. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Jyojiki Nayar US 4,349,254 US 6,229,913 B1 Sept. 14, 1982 May 8, 2001 Appeal 2010-007801 Application 11/357,631 3 Harman Cho US 7,035,451 B2 US Pat. Pub. 2007/0040924 A1 Apr. 25, 2006 (filed, Aug. 9, 2001) Feb. 22, 2007 (filed Aug. 19, 2005) REJECTIONS Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-11, 13, 15-20, 22, 23, 25, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cho and Jyojiki and/or Nayar. Claim 26 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cho, Jyojiki and/or Nayar, and Harman. Claims 27-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cho, Jyojiki and/or Nayar, Harman, and Nayar. ANALYSIS Regarding representative independent claim 1, Appellants contend that the combination of Cho, Jyojiki, and Nayer fails to disclose that “the externally generated signal is received at the splitter directly from the single lens to generate the plurality of signals which are directly received at the plurality of sensors” (App. Br. 8). We disagree. Nayar’s Figure 2 shows “a simplified optical diagram showing an apparatus 10 for mapping the three dimensional image of an object 22 within its field of view” (Nayar, col. 5, l. 66-col. 6, l. 1; Fig. 2). Light is projected onto the object and reflected light from the object is received by a detection apparatus 25, where it passes through lens 28 and is reflected by the beam splitter 30 onto image detecting arrays 32 and 34 (Nayar, col. 6, ll. 15-31; Fig. 2). As shown in Nayar’s Figure 2, there are no intervening parts or Appeal 2010-007801 Application 11/357,631 4 deviations of the paths of the reflected light between the lens 28 and the beam splitter 30, and between the beam splitter and the respective image detecting arrays 32 and 34. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that “the splitter 30 is directly behind the single lens 28, and the sensors 32 and 34 are directly behind the splitter” (Ans. 6). Appellants argue that [s]ince the reflected light passes through the telecentric lens [i.e., lens 28] for magnification, the reflected light is therefore indirectly received at the detecting arrays. Therefore, Nayar does not teach that the externally generated signal is received at the splitter directly from the single lens to generate the plurality of signals which are directly received at the plurality of sensors. (App. Br. 10). However, this argument is not commensurate with the broader language of claim 1. Claim 1 recites that “the signal is received at the splitter directly from the single lens.” Based on the plain meaning of this limitation, the modifier “directly” applies to the signal path extending from the lens to the splitter. As such, claim 1 does not preclude an indirect signal path to or through the single lens. Rather, the signal path must only be direct after the point at which the signal leaves the lens. Appellants’ argument that light passes through Nayar’s lens 28, which the Examiner relies on as the claimed “single lens” (Ans. 6), does not show that the path of light from the lens to the splitter is not direct. Therefore, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s finding (Ans. 6) that Nayar discloses that “the signal is received at the splitter directly from the single lens to generate the plurality of signals which are directly received at the plurality of sensors,” as recited in claim 1. Appeal 2010-007801 Application 11/357,631 5 Although Appellants additionally argue that the combination of Cho, Jyojiki, and Nayar is improper (Reply Br. 4-6), this argument is raised for the first time in the Reply Brief, and is thus untimely. See Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (“Informative”) (“The reply brief is not an opportunity to make arguments that could have been made during prosecution, but were not. Nor is the reply brief an opportunity to make arguments that could have been made in the principal brief on appeal to rebut the Examiner's rejections, but were not.”). Nevertheless, we briefly address Appellants’ two-part combinability argument as follows. First, Appellants assert the Examiner’s motivation for combining Nayar with Cho is that it “eliminates the need for the other lens and results in a single lens” (Ans. 4) is false because Cho’s solution “already improves on the prior art of Figure 1 by using a single lens, a single sensor and a micromirror 25, thereby eliminating the need for the second lens and sensor” (Reply Br. 5). However, Cho’s solution in Figure 2 that Appellants refer to does in fact include two lenses: the auxiliary lens 24, and the micromirror lens 25 (Cho, ¶ 43; Fig. 2). Given the two-lens system of Cho, the Examiner concludes that one would have combined Nayar’s arrangement of a single lens, beam splitter, and two image detecting arrays with Cho as follows: The resulting device of the rejection is similar to Fig. 2, of Cho et al. showing a micromirror array lens 25 directly receiving the signal from the single lens 24. However, a beam splitter is now at the location of the micromirror array, and a sensor is directly behind each output path of the beam splitter, resulting in a plurality of sensors directly behind [the] splitter. (Ans. 6). Thus, the Examiner’s motivation for combining Nayar with Cho— to eliminate the need for a second lens—is not falsely premised as Appeal 2010-007801 Application 11/357,631 6 Appellants assert. Moreover, Appellants have not specifically explained why eliminating a second lens is an insufficient motivation to modify Cho. Second, Appellants assert that the Examiner’s combination would improperly change the principle of operation of Cho (Reply Br. 5-6). While the combination does change how Cho’s system operates, this is not an improper combination, but merely an obvious change based on the motivation to eliminate a second lens as discussed above. Both Cho and Nayar seek to generate depth information from multiple images corresponding to different focal lengths (see Cho ¶¶ 43-44; Nayar, col. 17, l. 40-col. 18, 1. 20). The resulting modification of Cho, in view of Nayar, employs this same principle. Although Appellants assert that the micromirror lens 25 is crucial to Cho’s operation (Reply Br. 5-6), Nayar evidences that such a micromirror lens is not necessary for generating depth information from multiple images. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the combination of Nayar with Cho is improper. We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1, and claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8-11, 13, 15-20, 22, 23, 25, and 30 not separately argued. Although Appellants nominally argue claim 26 and claims 27-29 separately, the arguments are similar to those presented for claim 1. Therefore, we also sustain the rejection of claims 26-29 for the reasons discussed above. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-11, 13, 15-20, 22, 23, and 25-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Appeal 2010-007801 Application 11/357,631 7 DECISION For the above reasons, we affirm the rejections of claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8- 11, 13, 15-20, 22, 23, and 25-30. 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED tkl