Ex Parte Wulff et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 12, 2016

13097287 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 12, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/097,287 04/29/2011 Thomas Wulff
126568 7590 09/14/2016
Zebra Technologies Corporation
3 Overlook Point
Lincolnshire, IL 60069
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.
SBL01752AC02 6219
EXAMINER
GREENE, JOSEPH L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2452
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/14/2016 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):
docketing@zebra.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte THOMAS WULFF, ALISTAIR HAMILTON,
SUDHIR BHATIA, DAVID BELLOWS, and
KEVIN CORDES
Appeal2015-003511
Application 13/097,287
Technology Center 2400
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
KAISER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a non-final
rejection of claims 45, 46, 48-56, and 58-60.2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Symbol Technologies,
Inc. (Br. 3).
2 The January 2, 2014 Non-Final Action lists claims 47 and 57 as pending.
(Non-Final Act. 1). However, claims 47 and 57 have been cancelled. (Br.
7).
Appeal2015-003511
Application 13/097,287
EXEMPLARY CLAIMS
Claims 45 and 46, reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed
subject matter with some paragraphing added and with disputed limitations
emphasized:
45. A mobile computing device, comprising:
a camera capturing an image using a plurality of image
capture frames;
a gravitational sensor coupled to the camera, the
gravitational sensor generating a sensor signal in response to
detecting a motion of the camera when the camera captures the
image; and
a processor receiving the sensor signal from the
gravitational sensor, the processor associating the sensor signal
to the plurality of image capture frames and
determining whether an amplitude of the motion of the
camera is within a predetermined threshold value when the
camera captures each of the plurality of image capture frames
of the image based on the sensor signal associated to the plurality
of image capture frames of the image.
46. The mobile computing device of claim 45, wherein the
processor executes a software application that compensates for
the motion of the camera when the camera captures the image.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 45, 46, 48-51, 54--56, and 58 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nurmi (US 2005/0154798 Al;
published July 14, 2005), Yamazaki (US 2003/0122804 Al; published July
2
Appeal2015-003511
Application 13/097,287
3, 2003), and Yamada (US 2004/0246229 Al; published Dec. 9, 2004).
(Non-Final Act. 2---6). 3
Claims 52, 53, 59, and 60 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Nurmi, Yamazaki, Yamada, and Melaku (US
2003/0144793 Al; published July 31, 2003). (Non-Final Act. 6-7).
ISSUES
Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Nurmi
and Yamazaki teaches or suggests "a gravitational sensor coupled to the
camera ... generating a sensor signal in response to detecting a motion of
the camera when the camera captures the image," and "determining whether
an amplitude of the motion of the camera is within a predetermined
threshold value when the camera captures ... the image," as recited in
independent claim 45 and similarly recited in independent claim 55?
Issue 2: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination ofNurmi
and Yamazaki teaches or suggests "receiving the sensor signal from the
gravitational sensor ... associating the sensor signal to the plurality of
image capture frames," as recited in independent claim 45 and similarly
recited in independent claim 55?
Issue 3: Did the Examiner improperly combine the teachings and
suggestions of Nurmi, Yamazaki, and Yamada?
Issue 4: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Nurmi
and Yamazaki teaches or suggests "compensat[ ing] for the motion of the
3 We understand the Examiner's inclusion of canceled claims 61---64 in the
summary of this rejection (Non-Final Act. 2) to be a harmless typographical
error because those claims are not substantively addressed in the rejection
(id. at 2---6).
3
Appeal2015-003511
Application 13/097,287
camera when the camera captures the image," as recited in dependent claim
46 and similarly recited in dependent claim 56?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants'
conclusions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Non-Final Action from which the appeal is taken (Non-
Final Act. 2-8) and the reasons set forth in the Examiner's Answer in
response to Appellants' Appeal Brief (Ans. 7-12). We highlight and address
specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
Issue 1
Appellants argue Nurmi does not teach or suggest "a gravitational
sensor coupled to the camera ... generating a sensor signal in response to
detecting a motion of the camera when the camera captures the image," and
"determining whether an amplitude of the motion of the camera is within a
predetermined threshold value when the camera captures ... the image," as
recited in claim 45 and similarly recited in claim 55. (Br. 5---6).
Specifically, Appellants argue "Nurmi nowhere discloses that the sensor is
coupled to any camera of the device." (Id. at 5 (emphasis omitted)).
Additionally, Appellants argue Nurmi does not teach that its "sensor is
detecting the motion of the device (or the device with camera) when the
camera captures the image" or that Nurmi' s device even "captur[ es] any
image." (Id. at 5---6).
4
Appeal2015-003511
Application 13/097,287
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. The Examiner finds,
and we agree, Nurmi teaches or suggests a mobile device including a camera
and a motion sensor. (Ans. 8 (citing Nurmi Fig. 1); Non-Final Act. 2-3
(citing Nurmi i-fi-f 10, 29, Fig. 1)). The Examiner further finds, and we agree,
Nurmi' s device provides motion compensation when a sensor detects motion
(Final Act. 3 (citing Nurmi i1 29); Ans. 10 (citing Nurmi i-f l 0) ). The
Examiner additionally finds, and we agree, Yamazaki teaches a camera
which captures images and generates corresponding motion signals. (Ans. 8
(citing Yamazaki i-fi-f 13-15) ).
Appellants' argument that Nurmi does not disclose a camera is not
persuasive. Figure 1 of Nurmi shows a device with a camera icon that a user
can select and use. (See Nurmi i123, Fig. 1). Moreover, the Examiner's
combination relies on Yamazaki to teach a camera which captures images
(Ans. 8 (citing Yamazaki i-fi-f 15-18)), and Appellants' arguments directed to
Nurmi' s camera (Br. 5) do not address the Examiner's reliance on
Yamazaki' s camera which captures images.
To the extent Appellants argue that the sensor is not coupled to a
camera (see Br. 5), we note that Nurmi teaches sensors connected to its
device's controller (Nurmi i-fi-1 3 5-3 6, Fig. 8) and Yamazaki teaches a camera
connected to its device's controller (Yamazaki i192, Fig. 5); because the
sensor and camera are both connected to a device's controller, we are not
persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the references teach the recited
coupling.
Additionally, Appellants' arguments that Nurmi does not "detect[]
the motion of the device (or the device with camera) when the camera
captures the images," and as a result, does not generate sensor signals (Br.
5
Appeal2015-003511
Application 13/097,287
5) or "determin[ e] whether the amplitude of the motion of the camera is
within the predetermined threshold" (id. at 6 (emphasis omitted)), do not
address the Examiner's findings regarding Yamazaki. In particular, the
Examiner finds that Yamazaki' s "camera part 25 captures images" and uses
those images to detect motion and generate a motion signal. (Ans. 8 (citing
Yamazaki i-fi-f 14--15); see also Yamazaki i-f 121 ).
Furthermore, Nurmi teaches determining whether a device is in
motion or not using a sensor, i.e., Nurmi's sensor signal is at a level which
indicates motion (Nurmi i-fi-122, 29), and thus teaches "determin[ing] whether
the amplitude of the motion of the camera is within the predetermined
threshold." Appellants' arguments against Nurmi alone do not address the
Examiner's combination ofNurmi and Yamazaki which determines whether
Yamazaki' s camera is in motion or not when capturing images (Final Act. 3;
Ans. 10).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Nurmi and Yamazaki teaches or suggests "a gravitational
sensor coupled to the camera ... generating a sensor signal in response to
detecting a motion of the camera when the camera captures the image," and
"determining whether an amplitude of the motion of the camera is within a
predetermined threshold value when the camera captures ... the image," as
recited in claim 45 and similarly recited in claim 55.
Issue 2
Appellants argue Yamazaki does not teach or suggest "receiving the
sensor signal from the gravitational sensor ... associating the sensor signal
to the plurality of image capture frames," as recited in claim 45 and similarly
6
Appeal2015-003511
Application 13/097,287
recited in claim 55. (Br. 5). Specifically, Appellants argue Yamazaki
"generat[ es] motion vectors from the captured images but fails to disclose
associating any sensor signal (sensed by any gravitational sensor) to the
captured images." (Id.).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. The Examiner finds,
and we agree, Nurmi teaches a processor which receives a signal from a
gravitational sensor. (Ans. 8 (citing Nurmi i-fi-f 10, 22); Non-Final Act. 2-3
(citing Nurmi i-fi-12, 29)). The Examiner further finds, and we agree,
Yamazaki associates a sensor signal with its captured images by associating
a motion vector with those captured images. (Ans. 9 (citing Yamazaki
i-fi-f 13-15); Yamazaki i-f 121). The Examiner combines Nurmi and Yamazaki
to associate Nurmi' s gravitational sensor signal with Yamazaki' s captured
images. (See Ans. 9; see also Non-Final Act. 3). Appellants' arguments
against Yamazaki alone (Br. 5) do not address the Examiner's combination
of Nurmi and Yamazaki. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner
erred in finding the combination of Nurmi and Yamazaki teaches or suggests
"receiving the sensor signal from the gravitational sensor ... associating the
sensor signal to the plurality of image capture frames," as recited in claim 45
and similarly recited in claim 55.
Issue 3
Appellants argue the Examiner improperly combined Nurmi,
Yamazaki, and Yamada. (Br. 6-7). Specifically, Appellants argue that the
Examiner has "not provided a reasonable explanation as to why the
combination of teachings is proper," that "there is no motivation apparent in
the references to combine Nurmi, Yamazaki, and Yamada," and that the
7
Appeal2015-003511
Application 13/097,287
Examiner "appears to rely solely on hindsight analysis." (Id. (emphasis
omitted)).
We are not persuaded. The Examiner articulates reasoning with
rational underpinning why one of ordinary skill in the art would have
combined Nurmi, Yamazaki, and Yamada, namely, "to provide a system that
can better stabilize [its] images by actually viewing the images themselves
when making its[] determinations" (Non-Final Act. 3). Appellants'
arguments describe features taught by Nurmi, Yamazaki, and Yamada (Br.
6-7), but do not explain why the Examiner's rationale is unreasonable, and
thus, are unpersuasive because Appellants have not proffered sufficient
evidence or argument to persuade us the Examiner relied on impermissible
hindsight or that the Examiner's reasoning is in error.
Furthermore, Appellants' argument that "there is no motivation
apparent in the references" (Br. 6) is unpersuasive because the Examiner's
reason for combining references need not come from the references
themselves. See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner improperly combined
Nurmi, Yamazaki, and Yamada.
Issue 4
Appellants argue that Nurmi does not teach or suggest
"compensat[ing] for the motion of the camera when the camera captures the
image," as recited in claim 46 and similarly recited in claim 56. (Br. 7).
Specifically, Appellants argue Nurmi "compensate[ s] for the motion of the
device by steading a user interface" rather than compensating for images
taken by a camera in motion. (Id.). Appellants also argue Yamazaki
8
Appeal2015-003511
Application 13/097,287
"merely discloses detecting movement based on the captured images but
fails to disclose compensating [for] the movements of the device when the
images were captured." (Id. (emphasis omitted)).
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Nurmi
teaches a device which compensates for "undesirable movement." (Ans. 8,
11-12 (citing Nurmi i-fi-f 10, 22); Non-Final Act. 4 (citing Nurmi i129)). As
discussed above, the Examiner finds Yamazaki teaches a device having a
camera which captures images. (Ans. 8 (citing Yamazaki i-fi-f 15-18); Non-
Final Act. 4). The Examiner's combination ofNurmi and Yamazaki teaches
a system which compensates for undesirable movement when the device
captures images. (Ans. 12; see Non-Final Act. 4).
Appellants' arguments against the references individually are not
persuasive because the Examiner relies on the combination of Nurmi and
Yamazaki. Appellants have not persuasively addressed the Examiner's
combination of Nurmi and Yamazaki, which applies Nurmi' s motion
compensation to Yamazaki' s image capture in order to provide motion
compensation during image capture. (Ans. 12; see Non-Final Act. 4).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Nurmi and Yamazaki teaches or suggests "compensat[ing]
for the motion of the camera when the camera captures the image," as
recited in claim 46 and similarly recited in claim 56.
Remaining Claims
Appellants do not argue separate patentability for dependent claims
48-54 and 58---60 which depend directly or indirectly from claims 45 or 55.
(See Br. 7-8). For the reasons set forth above, therefore, we are not
9
Appeal2015-003511
Application 13/097,287
persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting these claims. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 48-54 and 58---60. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 45, 46, 48-51, 54--56, and 58
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nurmi, Yamazaki, and
Yamada is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejections of claims 52, 53, 59, and 60 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nurmi, Yamazaki, Yamada,
and Melaku 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
10