GoPro, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 1, 2022

2020004713 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 1, 2022)

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. 15/837,263 12/11/2017 Sammy Omari GPRO2-165-A 9510 142879 7590 04/01/2022 GoPro, Inc. at Young Basile c/o Young Basile Hanlon & MacFarlane, P.C. 3001 West Big Beaver Road Suite 624 Troy, MI 48084-3107 EXAMINER NGUYEN, CHAN T H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2697 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/01/2022 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): audit@youngbasile.com docketing@youngbasile.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SAMMY OMARI, PASCAL GOHL, JOSEPH A. ENKE, STEPAN MOSKOVCHENKO, and BENJAMIN P. TANKERSLEY Appeal 2020-004713 Application 15/837,263 Technology Center 2600 Before TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, ADAM J. PYONIN, and AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges. JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 The word “Appellant” herein refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as GoPro, Inc. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-004713 Application 15/837,263 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to an image signal processing method that includes determining an orientation setpoint for an image sensor based on a sequence of orientation estimates for the image sensor and the orientation setpoint in a combination of mechanical and electronic image stabilization. Spec., Abstr. Claims 1, 10, and 17 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A system comprising: an image sensor configured to capture an image; one or more motion sensors configured to detect motion of the image sensor; a mechanical stabilization system, including gimbals and motors, configured to control an orientation of the image sensor; an electronic image stabilization module configured to correct images for rotations of the image sensor; and a processing apparatus that is configured to: determine a sequence of orientation estimates based on sensor data from the one or more motion sensors; determine an orientation setpoint for the image sensor; based on the sequence of orientation estimates and the orientation setpoint, invoke the mechanical stabilization system to adjust the orientation of the image sensor; receive the image from the image sensor; determine an orientation error between the orientation of the image sensor and the orientation setpoint during capture of the image; based on the orientation error, invoke the electronic image stabilization module to correct the image for a rotation corresponding to the orientation error to obtain a stabilized image; and store, display, or transmit an output image based on the stabilized image. Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.) Appeal 2020-004713 Application 15/837,263 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Pan WO 2018/027340 Al Feb. 15, 2018 Lee US 2013/0088610 A1 Apr. 11, 2013 Gunday US 5,469,209 Nov. 21, 1995 Karpenko US 2015/0381891 Dec. 31, 2015 Ristroph US 2018/0255247 Sep. 6, 2018 REJECTIONS2 Claims 1, 2, 6, 9, 10, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as unpatentable over Pan. Final Act. 3-7. Claims 3-5, 11-13, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combination of Pan and Lee. Final Act. 8-10. Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combination of Pan and Gunday. Final Act. 10. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combination of Pan and Karpenko. Final Act. 10-11. Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combination of Pan and Ristroph. Final Act. 11. OPINION We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant, and in light of the contentions and evidence 2 As the Examiner notes (Final Act. 2), all rejections are under the provisions of Title 35 of the United States Code in effect after the effective date of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011. Appeal 2020-004713 Application 15/837,263 4 produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). Arguments not made are forfeited.3 Claim 1 Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that Pan anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Appeal Br. 7-9. Specifically, Appellant argues that Pan’s system of adjusting the input images based on movement data does not disclose the claim 1 limitation that recites: “determine an orientation error between the orientation of the image sensor and the orientation setpoint during capture of the image; based on the orientation error, invoke the electronic image stabilization module to correct the image for a rotation corresponding to the orientation error to obtain a stabilized image . . . .” Appeal Br. 7. In sum, Appellant asserts that Pan does not disclose the “determin[ation of] an orientation error between the orientation of the image sensor and the orientation setpoint during capture of the image” as recited in claim 1, and that the Examiner misinterprets Pan, which discloses relative positions between the imaging device and the fixed reference point. Id. at 8. The Examiner argues that Pan discloses the orientation error in the relative positions between the imaging devices 200a-f and reference point 202 (shown in Figure 4 of Pan) as these points are determined, or as they are determined over time during image capture. Ans. 4 (citing Pan ¶ 66). The 3 See In re Google Tech. Holdings LLC, 980 F.3d 858, 863 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“Because Google failed to present these claim construction arguments to the Board, Google forfeited both arguments.”); 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2013) (“Except as provided for in §§ 41.41, 41.47 and 41.52, any arguments or authorities not included in the appeal brief will be refused consideration by the Board for purposes of the present appeal.”). Appeal 2020-004713 Application 15/837,263 5 Examiner interprets “orientation error is the movement data as the relative positions between the imaging devices 200a-f and the reference point 202 [] determined at different time stamp[s]” during capture of an image and invokes electronic image stabilization to correct for rotations during corresponding to this error to stabilize an image. Ans. 4-5 (citing Pan, Fig. 6, ¶¶ 66, 73, 160-161). We are persuaded that the Examiner erred in determining that Pan’s relative positions over time based on reference point and imaging device sufficiently teaches the orientation error limitations of claim 1. Ans. 2. We agree with Appellant that Pan discloses that reference point 202 is the “known” position of inertial measurement unit (IMU) 220 that is used to sense the position of the mobile platform and track real time positions of the devices. Pan ¶¶ 65, 68; Reply 2 (citing Pan ¶ 64, Fig. 4). We further agree with Appellant that paragraph 66 of Pan does not persuasively demonstrate that relative positions over time of the imaging devices in conjunction reference point 202 discloses the “orientation setpoint during capture of the image” and “orientation error” recited in claim 1. See Reply 2. Indeed, Pan teaches that movement data for each imaging device can be interpolated based on relative position between the imaging device and reference point 202. Pan ¶¶ 64, 155; Appeal Br. 8-9. Pan’s disclosure of relative movement data of the imaging device does not demonstrate how such data teaches “orientation setpoint during capture of the image” as recited in claim 1. See Spec. ¶¶ 79-80, Fig. 6. Accordingly, the Examiner has failed to show persuasively that Pan’s relative positions between the imaging devices 200a-f and the reference point 202 are an “orientation error between [an] orientation of [an] image sensor and [an] orientation setpoint during capture of [an] image” and “based on the Appeal 2020-004713 Application 15/837,263 6 orientation error invoke[ing] the electronic image stabilization module” as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1, or the rejection of independent claims 10 and 17. Nor do we sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2-9, 11-16, and 18-20, each of which stands with its respective base claim. CONCLUSION We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 9, 10, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Pan; rejection of claims 3-5, 11-13, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Pan and Lee; rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Pan and Gunday; rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Pan and Karpenko; and rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Pan and Ristroph. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 6, 9, 10, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20 102 Pan 1, 2, 6, 9, 10, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20 3-5, 11-13, 19 102 Pan, Lee 3-5, 11-13, 19 7 103 Pan, Gunday 7 8 103 Pan, Karpenko 8 16 103 Pan, Ristroph 16 Overall Outcome 1-20 Appeal 2020-004713 Application 15/837,263 7 REVERSED