Ex Parte Yamazaki

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 8, 2008

10278893 (B.P.A.I. May. 8, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte AKIHISA YAMAZAKI
_____________

Appeal 2008-1133
Application 10/278,893
Technology Center 2600
______________

Decided: May 8, 2008
_______________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, ROBERT E. NAPPI,
and KARL D. EASTHOM Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) of the final
rejection of claims 12, 13, and 16 through 19.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.

INVENTION
The invention is directed to an auto focusing system which combines
a distance measurement sensor and contrast auto focus. See page 2 of
Appellant’s Specification. Claim 12 is representative of the invention and
reproduced below:
Appeal 2008-1133
Application 10/278,893

1. An autofocus adjustment device, comprising:
a distance-measuring device which measures a distance from an
object;
an image pickup device which converts an optical image of the
object taken in through an image pickup lens to an image signal;
a focus adjustment device of a contrast system which adjusts a
focus position of the image pickup lens using a high frequency
component of the image signal outputted from the image pickup
device; and
a control device which acquires distance-measuring output by
periodically activating the distance-measuring device ahead of input
of an image pickup start command and controls focus adjustment in
the contrast system using the acquired distance-measuring output
upon reception of the image pickup start command,
wherein the image pickup lens is driven according to a
measurement result of the distance-measuring device, and then the
focus adjustment device adjusts the focus position according to the
image signal outputted from the image pickup device.

REFERENCES
Kondo US 5,457,512 Oct. 10, 1995
Parulski US 5,668,597 Sep. 16, 1997
Fiete US 6,023,056 Feb. 8, 2000
Hashimoto US 6,704,054 B1 Mar. 9, 2004
(filed Oct. 20, 1999)

REJECTION AT ISSUE
Claims 12, 13, and 16 through 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hashimoto in view of Fiete, Parulski,
and Kondo. The Examiner’s rejection is on pages 3 through 9 of the
Answer.
Throughout the opinion, we make reference to the Brief (received
February 9, 2007), Reply Brief (received August 15, 2007) and the Answer
(mailed June 15, 2007) for the respective details thereof.
2

Appeal 2008-1133
Application 10/278,893

ISSUES
Appellant argues on pages 11 through 16 of the Brief that the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 12, 13, and 16 through 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is in error. Appellant argues, on page 14 of the Brief that the Fiete
reference teaches that the claim limitation of performing periodic distance
measurements is undesirable, and as such Fiete “cannot teach or suggest that
one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Hashimoto in
the manner asserted by the Examiner.” Further, Appellant states, on page 15
of the Brief that claim 12 recites that the focus adjustment is performed upon
reception of the image pickup start command. Appellant identifies that
Hashimoto teaches that the focus operations are performed before the image
pickup command and Parulski teaches that focus adjustment occurs after the
image pickup start command. Brief 14. Appellant reasons that since these
two references “teach or suggest performing focus adjustments at different
times in the image capture process, which would teach away from each
other.” Brief 16.
Thus, Appellant’s contentions present us with two issues, a) whether
the Examiner erred in combining the periodic distancing teaching of Fiete
with Hashimoto, and b) whether the Examiner erred in combining the focus
after receiving the image pickup start command teaching of Parulski with
Hashimoto.

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Hashimoto teaches an auto focusing system for an image
pickup of a camera. Abstract. Hashimoto’s system makes use
of an infrared distance measuring system to roughly determine
3

Appeal 2008-1133
Application 10/278,893

the focus of the lenses, and then the imager is used (i.e. contrast
auto focus) to perform the fine focusing adjustment of the
lenses. Col. 11, ll. 59-65.
2. In Hashimoto’s system there is a “release switch” to generate an
instruction to start an imaging operation. This switch is
constructed of two switches. The first stage (first switch)
generates the instruction to start the auto exposure and auto
focus operation and a second stage (second switch which
receives a signal from first switch) issues the instruction to start
the exposure operation (image capture). See figure 2, and col.
6, ll. 8-14.
3. Hashimoto’s auto focusing system includes driving the lens to
the in-focus position. See steps S17 in figure 3 and step S27 in
figure 5.
4. Fiete teaches a method of determining focus in an auto focus
image capture system. Abstract.
5. The Examiner finds and Fiete teaches in column 1, lines 23
through 53, that some auto focusing systems periodically
perform the distance measurements. Answer 4. Appellant does
not contest this finding, but rather argues that Fiete discourages
using periodic distance measuring. Brief 14. Thus, it is an
uncontested fact that Fiete teaches periodic distance measuring.
6. Fiete, in column 1, lines 49 through 60, discusses a prior art
system used to correct focus of an image capture system which
can change over time due to factors such as thermal changes.
However, Fiete identifies the challenge with such systems is
4

Appeal 2008-1133
Application 10/278,893

that it is difficult to separate changes in focus from normal
changes in the scene. See specifically col. 1, ll. 58-60.
7. Fiete’s solution to the challenges presented by systems such as
discussed in facts 5 and 6 is to determine the best focus for the
image continuously, line by line across the image. Col. 2, ll.
13-29.
8. The Examiner finds and Parulski teaches, in figure 9 and
column 8, line 39 through column 9, line 3, focusing the lens
upon receipt of the image pickup start command. Answer 8.
Appellant does not contest this finding, but rather argues that
this is incompatible with Hashimoto’s system. Brief 15. Thus,
it is an uncontested fact that Parulski teaches focusing the lens
upon receipt of the image pickup start command.
9. We note that Parulski teaches using data from the image sensor
to focus the lens (i.e. imager or contrast auto-focusing).
Parulski’s system makes use of image data from only a small
section of the image sensor to perform the focus. Abstract. In
column 9, lines 1-2, Parulski teaches that the entire focusing
sequence occurs rapidly, taking only a fraction of a second.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW

Our reviewing court has said “[a] reference may be said to teach away
when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be
discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be
lead in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.
5

Appeal 2008-1133
Application 10/278,893

The degree of teaching away will of course depend on the particular facts; in
general, a reference will teach away if it suggests that the line of
development flowing from the reference’s disclosure is unlikely to be
productive of the result sought by the applicant.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551,
553, (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citing United States V. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 52,
(1966)). However, a reference that “teaches away” does not pre se preclude
a prima facie case of obviousness, but rather the “teaching away” of the
reference is a factor to be considered in determining unobviousness. Id at
552.

ANALYSIS
Appellant’s arguments on page 7 of the Brief are directed to claims
12, 13, and 16 through 19 as a group. Thus, in accordance with 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37 (c)(1)(vii) we group claims 12, 13, and 16 through 19 together and
select claim 12 as representative of the group.
Appellant has not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in combining
the periodic distancing teaching of Fiete with Hashimoto. As identified in
the findings of fact, it is undisputed that Fiete teaches it was known that
some auto focusing systems periodically perform a distance measurement.
Fact 5. The purpose of these systems is to correct focus of an image capture
system which changes due to factors such as temperature of the system.
Fact 6. While Hashimoto identifies that such systems have drawbacks in
instances where there are changes in the scene (Fact 6), we do not find that
these drawbacks would discourage the skilled artisan from using such a
system. Hashimoto does not identify that auto focusing systems which
periodically perform a distance measurement would be unproductive, but
6

Appeal 2008-1133
Application 10/278,893

rather identifies that they will solve the problem of adjusting for temperature
changes in the system, and will have difficulties when capturing an image of
a changing scene. Thus, we do not find that Hashimoto teaches away from
periodically performing a distance measurement in an auto focusing system.
Accordingly, Appellant has not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in
combining the periodic distancing teaching of Fiete with Hashimoto.
Similarly, Appellant has not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in
combining the focus after receiving the image pickup start command
teaching of Parulski with Hashimoto. We agree with the Appellant that
Hashimoto teaches focusing before receiving the image pickup start
command (Fact 2) and that Parulski teaches focusing the image after
receiving the image pickup start command (Fact 8). However, Appellant’s
arguments, on page 16 of the Brief, have not persuaded us that Parulski’s
teaching of focusing before receiving the image pickup start command
would discourage one from focusing after receiving the image pickup start
command and thus teach away from the combination. Further, Appellant’s
argument, on page 6 of the Reply Brief, that the image focuser of Hashimoto
takes an inordinate amount of time such that one would not perform the
image focusing after the image pickup start command is not persuasive.
Initially, we note that Hashimoto, in column 11 lines 57 through column 12
line 23 which Appellant relies upon to support this argument, does not
identify that the reason for focusing being performed prior to the image
pickup start command is because it takes an inordinate amount of time.
Rather column 12, lines 9-23, identify the instance where the infrared active
auto focusing is not used to set the center point of the range for the image
auto focusing, and as such focusing using the image auto focusing may take
7

Appeal 2008-1133
Application 10/278,893

time. Further, Parulski teaches using an image auto-focusing technique,
which is performed after the image pickup start command is issued, and
states that the focusing sequence is fast. Fact 9. For the aforementioned
reasons, Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us that the Examiner
erred in combining the focus after receiving the image pickup start command
teaching of Parulski with Hashimoto.
Accordingly, Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 12, 13, and 16 through 19 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).

CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 12, 13, and 16 through
19.

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner 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)(1)(iv).

8

Appeal 2008-1133
Application 10/278,893

AFFIRMED

eld

SUGHRUE MION, PLLC
2100 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W.
SUITE 800
WASHINGTON DC 20037
9