Ex Parte Wood

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 27, 2007

10346476 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 27, 2007)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte ROLAND ANDREW WOOD
_____________

Appeal 2007-2661
Application 10/346,476
Technology Center 2800
______________

Decided: November 27, 2007
_______________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and MARC S. HOFF,
Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002) of the final
rejection of claims 23 through 28.
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of these claims.
INVENTION

The invention is directed to a lightweight infrared camera system for
use on lightweight micro air vehicles. See pages 1 and 4 of Appellant’s
Specification. Claim 23 is representative of the invention and reproduced
below:
Appeal 2007-2661
Application 10/346,476

23. A lightweight camera and system comprising:
a camera comprising:
at least one lens having a nonplanar focal plane;
a substantially planar infrared detector array situated
proximate to the nonplanar focal plane of said lens;
a motion detector for detecting motion of the camera; and
a transmitter connected to said detector array and said motion
detector;
a receiver for receiving wireless signals from said
transmitter; and
a processor connected to said receiver;
wherein:
an image detected by said detector has some nonplanar-to-
planar focal plane distortion and said detector has some motion
relative to a source of the image resulting in some forward translation
of camera blur of the image detected by said detector array;
said motion detector has an output providing an indication of an
amount of forward translation of camera blur; and
said processor reduces the distortion.

REFERENCES

Farr US 5,751,863 May 12, 1998

Savoye US 5,880,777 Mar. 9, 1999

Howard US 6,433,333 B1 Aug. 13, 2002

Caswell US 6,714,240 B1 Mar. 30, 2004
(filed Jun. 23, 1999)

James M. McMichael, Micro Air Vehicles – Toward a New Dimension
in Flight, Aug. 7, 1997,
http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/docs/mav_auvsi.htm.

2

Appeal 2007-2661
Application 10/346,476

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 23 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Savoye in view of Caswell.
Claims 25 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Savoye in view of Caswell and Howard.
Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Savoye in view of Caswell, Howard and Farr.
Claim 28 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Savoye in view of Caswell, Howard, Farr and McMichael.
Throughout the opinion, we make reference to the Brief (received
October 18, 2006), Reply Brief (received March 23, 2007) and the Answer
(mailed January 23, 2007) for the respective details thereof.
ISSUES
Appellant contends that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 23 and 24
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is in error. Appellant presents several arguments
directed to the combination of Savoye and Caswell on pages 7 through 13 of
the Brief. Most notably, Appellant argues that Caswell, the reference the
Examiner relies upon to teach motion compensation, does not teach that a
motion detector is used to reduce the amount of camera blur by providing an
output indicating forward translation of the camera. Rather, Appellant
asserts that Caswell uses the motion compensation to fill in part of an image
captured and remove fixed pattern noise. Br. 10-11.
The Examiner responds in the Answer, stating:
[I]t should be noted that image blur due to relative motion is different
from field distortions that are incurred by a simple lens. Additionally,
Caswell clearly illustrates (see Fig. 3) that a plurality of image
3

Appeal 2007-2661
Application 10/346,476

processing functions are being performed such as MCA (46), fixed
pattern suppression, (50), and normalization (52). Further, Caswell
states (column 6, lines 40-48) that "One of the ways that the IMU data
12 is used by the MCI processor 16 is in the motion compensation
accumulation (MCA) step 46. During step 46, the FPA data 42 is
integrated in a set of inertially stabilized arrays, with an array for each
color band. Another way to view this step is that the FPA data 42 for
each color is electronically stabilized. To accomplish the MCA step
46, the portion of each subframe of data taken with detectors sensitive
to a given color band is added to that color band's inertially stabilized
array". It should be noted that electronic stabilization (i.e., image
stabilization wherein image blur due to relative motion is
compensated) as taught by Caswell occurs in a motion compensation
accumulation (MCA) step using IMU (i.e., inertial measurement unit)
data as an input. Thus while Caswell teaches image processing
functions such as fixed pattern noise, Caswell also teaches
compensation of image data blur due to relative motion using data
obtained from a inertial measurement unit.

(Answer 12-13; emphasis in original.)

Thus, the contentions of the Appellant presents us with the issue of
whether the combination of Savoye and Caswell teaches a camera system
with a motion detector that has an output providing an indication of an
amount of forward translation blur, as recited in independent claim 23.

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Savoye teaches a low-light imaging system. Title and abstract.
2. Savoye’s image sensor of the system can be used on vehicles and
the image processing can be performed at a location remote from
the vehicle. Col. 11, ll. 24-31; col. 12, ll. 6-15, 38-48.
3. Savoye contemplates several arrangements of image detectors and
lenses. See for example Figure 12A, using a planar image detector
4

Appeal 2007-2661
Application 10/346,476

with a lens having a nonplanar focal plane, and Figure 12B,
showing using a nonplanar image detector with a lens having a
nonplanar focal plane. Col. 28, ll. 38-48.
4. Savoye teaches that the imaging system can be used with other, not
disclosed, imaging processing functions such as non-uniformity
and defect compensation, and motion compensation. Col. 41, ll.
13-25.
5. Caswell teaches an optical sensing system with motion
compensation for use on a vehicle. Title, abstract and col. 3, ll. 18-
28.
6. In Caswell’s system motion of the platform is monitored by an
inertial reference unit which makes use of gyroscopes. Col. 3, ll.
37-44, col. 4, ll. 47-48.
7. Caswell’s system uses detectors of different bandwidth to generate
a composite image. Col. 5, ll. 52-67.
8. Caswell teaches that the optical sensing system scans the image
data and the motion of the platform is used as part of the scanning
of the image. Col. 6, ll. 13-18.
9. In Caswell’s system the measured motion is used to create offset
data for each color band of the image. Col. 3, ll. 55-60, col. 6, ll.
49-54.
ANALYSIS
Initially, we note that Appellant has presented several arguments
which have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection, most
notably Appellant’s arguments directed to the claimed non-planar lens and
planar image array. As discussed in our Findings of Fact, Savoye teaches an
5

Appeal 2007-2661
Application 10/346,476

embodiment with a non-planar lens and a planar array. Fact 3. Similarly,
we do not find Appellant’s arguments concerning the combinability of the
references, which present a strict application of the teaching, suggestion
motivation test, to be persuasive of error in the Examiner’s rejection. The
Supreme Court has recently stated that “[t]he obviousness analysis cannot be
confined by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and
motivation.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007).
Nonetheless, Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us that the
Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Savoye and Caswell
teaches a camera system with a motion detector that has an output providing
an indication of an amount of forward translation blur, as recited in
independent claim 23. Claim 23 recites that a “motion detector has an
output providing an indication of an amount of forward translation camera
blur.” Appellant’s Specification discusses forward translation blur as
causing a blur of pixels in the image. Thus, in the context of the claim we
consider the motion detector to be providing an indication of the blurring of
pixels in an image frame. The Examiner has not found, nor do we find, that
Savoye teaches monitoring the forward motion of the detector. The
Examiner relies upon Caswell to teach this feature. We disagree with the
Examiner’s finding that Caswell teaches monitoring the forward motion of
the detector as claimed. Caswell teaches a system for motion compensation
of an image scanning device. Fact 5. The motion, including forward
motion, of the camera is monitored and used to adjust the image. The image
adjustments are described as providing an offset to the image. Fact 9. We
do not consider this offset to be representative of a blur of pixels, but rather
an adjustment for the different bandwidth sensors scanning the same portion
6

Appeal 2007-2661
Application 10/346,476

of the image to be monitored from different relative positions. Thus, we do
not find that the combination of Savoye and Caswell teaches a camera
system with a motion detector that has an output providing an indication of
an amount of forward translation blur, as recited in claim 23. Accordingly,
we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 23 or
dependent claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
The Examiner’s rejections of dependent claims 25 through 28 rely
upon Caswell to teach modifying Savoye’s system. We do not find that the
Examiner’s additional reliance upon the disclosures of Howard, Farr or
McMichael remedy the deficiencies noted in the rejection of claim 23.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 25
through 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

CONCLUSION
We consider the Examiner’s rejections of claims 23 through 28 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) to be in error as we do not find that the combination of
applied references teaches or suggests the limitations in independent claim
23 and its dependents.

ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, we will not sustain the Examiner’s
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The decision of the Examiner is reversed.

REVERSED

7

Appeal 2007-2661
Application 10/346,476

tdl

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.
101 COLUMBIA ROAD
P O BOX 2245
MORRISTOWN NJ 07962-2245

8