Motorola Mobility LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 16, 2021

2020000394 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 16, 2021)

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.
15/642,182 07/05/2017 Yuxin Wang MM920170061-US-NP 6226
138908 7590 06/16/2021
Burrus Intellectual Property Law Group
(MM Files)
222 12th Street NE
Suite 1803
Atlanta, GA 30309
EXAMINER
ITSKOVICH, MIKHAIL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2483
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/16/2021 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):
BIPLaw_docketing@burrusiplaw.com
pburrus@burrusiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YUXIN WANG, ALBERTO R. CAVALLARO, and
ROGER HARMON
Appeal 2020-000394
Application 15/642,182
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, JUSTIN BUSCH, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
BUSCH, 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 AFFIRM.

1 We use the term Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Motorola Mobility
LLC. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-000394
Application 15/642,182
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention generally relates to a camera with a mechanical
upright that protects the lens. Spec. ¶¶ 39–41, 89, 117, Figs. 3–9. The
claimed subject matter relates to devices with a housing having a major face
and a convex lens protruding therefrom, a bezel around the lens, and a
mechanical upright that protrudes from the major face further than the
convex lens protrudes from the face and a method for creating an image by
replacing the portion of a first image captured using a first lens on a device
having a first mechanical upright that is obstructed by the first mechanical
upright with a portion of a second image captured using a second lens
having a second mechanical upright. Appeal Br. 35–39. Claims 1 and 16,
reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A device, comprising:
a housing defining a first major face having a first normal
axis extending from the first major face in a first direction;
a first convex lens protruding from the first major face;
a first bezel at least partially surrounding the first convex
lens; and
at least one mechanical upright extending from the first
bezel to a first height that is greater than a second height that the
convex lens protrudes from the first major face.

16. A method, comprising:
capturing a first image with a first imager through a first
convex lens protruding from a first major face of a device with
at least one mechanical upright extending distally from the first
major face farther than the first convex lens, wherein one or more
portions of the first image are obstructed by the at least one
mechanical upright;
capturing a second image with a second imager through a
second convex lens protruding from a second major face of the
device with at least one other mechanical upright extending
Appeal 2020-000394
Application 15/642,182
3
distally from the second major face farther than the second
convex lens; and
replacing, with one or more processors operable with the
first imager and the second imager, the one or more portions of
the first image with one or more other portions of the second
image.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Lindskog US 2011/0200259 A1 Aug. 18, 2011
Masuda US 2013/0242040 A1 Sept. 19, 2013
Zhang US 2016/0054643 A1 Feb. 25, 2016

REJECTIONS
Claims 1–13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Masuda and Zhang. Non-Final Act. 5–10.
Claims 14–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Masuda, Zhang, and Lindskog. Non-Final Act. 10–12.

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Masuda teaches or suggests every limitation
recited in claims 1–20 except for the mechanical upright(s) and the
characteristics of the upright(s). Non-Final Act. 5–12. The Examiner finds
Zhang teaches the mechanical upright(s) and associated characteristics.
Non-Final Act. 6–12. The Examiner determines it would have been obvious
to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellant’s invention to
supplement Masuda’s teachings with Zhang’s protrusions to protect the
lens(es). Non-Final Act. 6 (citing Zhang ¶ 43). In the Answer, the
Examiner alternatively finds that Masuda’s extension portions of lens barrel
Appeal 2020-000394
Application 15/642,182
4
26 teaches a bezel having a mechanical upright that extends from the bezel a
distance beyond the distance that at least one of Masuda’s lenses (i.e., LB2
and LB3) protrudes from the face. Ans. 5 (citing Masuda, Figs. 1, 2).
The Examiner finds Lindskog teaches or suggests the limitations
related to processing the images and, more specifically, to replacing a
portion of an obstructed image captured using one lens with a portion of an
image captured using a different lens. Non-Final Act. 10–12. The Examiner
determines it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art
at the time of Appellant’s invention to supplement Masuda’s and Zhang’s
teachings with Lindskog’s image processing technique to replace obstructed
portions of one image with an unobstructed portion of a second image in
order to remove the obstructions. Non-Final Act. 11 (citing Lindskog ¶ 77).
CLAIMS 1–3 AND 5–12
Appellant argues the rejection of independent claims 1 and 10 as a
group. Appeal Br. 10–25 (“Ground 1”); Reply Br. 6–12. Appellant does not
separately argue claims 2, 3, 5–9, 11, and 12, which ultimately depend from
one of independent claims 1 and 10. Therefore, we select independent claim
1 as representative of these claims that stand rejected as obvious over
Masuda and Zhang. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Of particular relevance to representative claim 1, the Examiner finds
Masuda teaches a “mechanical upright extending from the first bezel to a
first height,” but Masuda does not disclose that the upright extends from the
bezel to a “height that is greater than a second height that the convex lens
protrudes from the first major face,” as recited in representative claim 1.
Non-Final Act. 5–6 (citing Masuda, Fig. 1 (lens barrel 26)). The Examiner
finds Zhang teaches this missing limitation because Zhang discloses
Appeal 2020-000394
Application 15/642,182
5
protrusions 145 of pressing ring 105 protruding from and beyond the outer
surface of lens 104, and the Examiner determines a person of ordinary skill
in the art would have modified Masuda with Zhang’s teachings “in order to
‘protect the lens 104 from being scratched and damaged.’” Non-Final Act. 6
(quoting Zhang ¶ 43; citing Zhang, Figs. 2, 3).
Masuda discloses an omnidirectional imaging system with two fisheye
lenses in which a lens surface projects from a housing. Masuda ¶¶ 3, 20, 21.
Portions of Masuda’s Figures 1 and 2 are reproduced below:

Figures 1 and 2 of Masuda depict an exemplary embodiment of an
omnidirectional imaging system having two fisheye lenses and a detailed
view illustrating the imaging optical systems (i.e., the seven lenses, prism,
and aperture stop), respectively. Masuda ¶¶ 14, 15. Using the two fisheye
optical systems 20A, 20B to capture two images, Masuda synthesizes an
image based on the overlapping area of the two images. Masuda ¶¶ 22, 34.
Lens barrel 26 holds the lenses to properly align the optical elements of each
lens. Masuda ¶ 30.
Appeal 2020-000394
Application 15/642,182
6
Zhang discloses a camera case that includes a “tubular lens receiver
. . . for receiving a lens of the camera, . . . a lens and a pressing ring [that]
secures the lens to an opened end of the lens receiver.” Zhang, Abstract; see
Zhang ¶ 41. Figure 2, reproduced below, depicts the front portion of one
embodiment of Zhang’s camera case:

Figure 2 of Zhang illustrates “a front cover of the waterproof case.” Zhang
¶ 28. The “pressing ring defines a side away from the lens, a plurality of
protrusions are arranged on the side away from the lens, and a valley is
defined between each two protrusions to allow light entering the inside of
the lens through each valley and enlarge viewing angle of the camera.”
Zhang, Abstract; see Zhang ¶¶ 43–45. By protruding from the outer surface
of lens 104, Zhang’s protrusions 145 “protect the lens 104 from being
scratched and damaged.” Zhang ¶ 43. “[T]he inner rims of the protrusions
145 configure to define an inscribed rectangle 146,” which “satisfies the
large viewing angle requirement of the camera” and allows light to enter
inside lens 104 through valleys 144. Zhang ¶ 45. Figures 3 and 4,
Appeal 2020-000394
Application 15/642,182
7
reproduced below, provide additional views of pressing 105, protrusions
145, and valleys 144:

Figures 3 and 4 of Zhang, respectively, depict “a schematic view illustrating
a pressing ring of the waterproof case” and “an enlarged view of part of the
pressing ring.” Zhang ¶¶ 29–30.
Appellant contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not
have combined Zhang’s protrusions with Masuda’s device. See Appeal
Br. 11–23; Reply Br. 8–12. Appellant also argues that, even when
combined, the prior art does not teach or suggests a bezel that surrounds a
lens, as recited in representative claim 1. Appeal Br. 23–25.2

2 Addressing the Examiner’s alternate finding, Appellant also asserts
Masuda does not teach a mechanical upright that extends from a bezel to a
height greater than a height that the lens extends from the major face. Reply
Br. 7–8. We do not address the merits of this alternate finding and
Appellant’s arguments because, for the reasons discussed below, we agree
with the Examiner that the proposed combination of Masuda and Zhang
teaches this disputed limitation and that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have combined the cited teachings to arrive at the claimed system,
which is dispositive with respect to this issue (i.e., whether the art teaches
this limitation of representative claim 1). See Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742
F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (finding an administrative agency is at
liberty to reach a decision based on “a single dispositive issue”).
Appeal 2020-000394
Application 15/642,182
8
Regarding the proposed combination, Appellant asserts adding
Zhang’s protrusions to Masuda’s lens would completely surround the lens,
thereby reducing its field of view, which would have rendered Masuda
unsatisfactory for intended purpose. Appeal Br. 16–23; Reply Br. 10–12. In
particular, Appellant argues Masuda’s principle of operation “requires two
oppositely facing fisheye lenses,” which must have a field of view greater
than 180 degrees resulting in two overlapping images, so that the system can
combine to generate an omnidirectional image. Appeal Br. 18 (citing
Masuda ¶¶ 22, 35). Appellant contends Zhang teaches protrusions that
block the viewing angle of the lens, and Appellant asserts Zhang includes
valleys in the protrusion “to allow light to enter to ‘enlarge’ this blocked
viewing angle” and to define a 16:9 rectangle. Appeal Br. 19 (citing Zhang
¶¶ 36, 43). Appellant further asserts that, because Masuda relates to taking
omnidirectional images, blocking a portion of the field of view that would
prevent capturing overlapping images renders Masuda unsatisfactory for its
intended purpose. Appeal Br. 22–23.
We disagree with Appellant that modifying Masuda as proposed
would render Masuda unsuitable for its intended purpose. As support for
this position, Appellant contends Zhang “expressly states that [its]
protrusions block the viewing angle,” Appeal Br. 20 (citing Zhang ¶ 45), but
Zhang actually discloses the opposite:
The inscribed rectangle 146 has a length and a width with a ratio
of about 16:9, which not only satisfies the large viewing angle
requirement of the camera, but also conforms to the trend in
which a widescreen display of the camera with a length-width
ratio being equal to 16:9 is used for taking and displaying
pictures.”
Appeal 2020-000394
Application 15/642,182
9
Zhang ¶ 45 (emphases added). Appellant also asserts the Examiner
“confirm[s] Appellant’s argument” that the proposed combination would
render Masuda unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Appeal Br. 22. The
Examiner’s finding that the “protrusions as claimed necessarily block a
portion of the field of view,” however, merely points out that Appellant’s
described and claimed invention includes protrusions that, like the
protrusions in the system resulting from the Examiner’s proposed
combination, block a portion of the field of view. Non-Final Act. 3
(emphasis added).
Furthermore, and contrary to Appellant’s assertion, Zhang’s valleys
1443 are not in, or part of, protrusions 145. Rather, Zhang defines and
depicts valleys 144 as the spaces between each consecutive pair of
protrusions. Zhang ¶ 44, Figs. 3, 4 (reproduced above). Zhang further
discloses that “the inner rims of the protrusions 145 [are] configure[d] to
define an inscribed rectangle 146,” which “satisfies the large viewing angle
requirement of the camera.” Zhang ¶ 45. Zhang’s protrusions are designed
so that the corners of the 16:9 rectangle defined by the inner rims of the
protrusions are adjacent to one of valleys 144 so that “the light can enter the
inside of the lens 104 through the valleys 144, which prevents undesirable
shadow appearing on the comers of the pictures.” Zhang ¶ 45.
In other words, Zhang teaches designing protrusions and valleys such
that the protrusions “can protect the lens 104 from being scratched and

3 Zhang labels the valleys of pressing ring 106 with the reference numeral
144 in Figures 2 and 3 and paragraph 45, but Zhang erroneously identifies
the valleys using reference numeral 114 in paragraph 44. See Zhang ¶¶ 44–
45, Figs. 2, 3. Nevertheless, it is clear from the context that these refer to the
same elements—i.e., the valleys defined between protrusions 145.
Appeal 2020-000394
Application 15/642,182
10
damaged” but the valleys still provide for the necessary light and field of
view for the associated lens. Zhang ¶¶ 43, 45. Adding protrusions based on
Zhang’s teachings would not preclude Masuda from having a field of view
that is 180 degrees or greater. Consistent with the Examiner’s finding,
Zhang does not teach that protrusions 145 need to completely surround the
lens. See Ans. 7–8. In fact, as Appellant notes, Zhang must include valleys
144 between protrusions 145. Appeal Br. 19 (citing Zhang ¶ 45); see also
Ans. 8 (“Even Appellant admits on Page 19 that” valleys must be included).
Applying Zhang’s teaching to add protrusions and valleys to Masuda’s
camera allows for maintaining Masuda’s greater-than-180-degree field of
view, but the field of view would be partially obstructed by protrusions and
unobstructed with respect to the valleys between the protrusions.
An obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise teachings directed
to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take
account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in
the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
(2007). “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity,
not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. The test for obviousness is not
whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated
into the structure of the primary reference; . . . [r]ather, the test is what the
combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of
ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)
(citations omitted). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have
understood that adding protrusions would partially block the field of view of
the lens and, therefore, such a person would be interested in minimizing
these obstructions while still providing the protective benefit of the
protrusions. The proposed combination applies Zhang’s teaching of
Appeal 2020-000394
Application 15/642,182
11
protrusions and valleys that extend beyond the lens to Masuda’s system.
Such a combination applied by a person of ordinary skill in the art need not
have the same ratio of protrusion to valley and, in fact, the combination may
result in protective protrusions that surround a small portion of the lens.
Moreover, nothing in the proposed combination precludes combining
the two partially obstructed images taken from the fisheye lenses. As the
Examiner notes, similar to the proposed combination, representative claim 1
recites a device that includes protrusions that partially block the lenses’
fields of view. Nevertheless, there is no persuasive evidence that these
obstructions would prevent combining the two images taken from the two
fisheye lenses in the proposed combination because the proposed
combination still captures two images having a field of view greater than
180 degrees (albeit with obstructions).
Next, we address Appellant’s assertion that the combination does not
teach a “bezel at least partially surrounding the first convex lens,” as recited
in representative claim 1 because Masuda’s uprights, not the bezel, surround
the lens whereas Masuda’s bezel sits behind the lens. See Appeal Br. 23–25.
The Examiner finds Masuda’s uprights are part of, and extend from, barrel
26, which the Examiner finds teaches the recited bezel. Non-Final Act. 5
(finding Masuda’s lens barrel 26 that holds the optical elements teach the
recited bezel and the “extension portions of the lens barrel 26” teach the
recited mechanical upright (citing Masuda ¶ 30, Figs. 1, 2, 4)); Ans. 14. In
other words, the Examiner finds the uprights in the proposed combination
are part of the bezel and the outermost portion of barrel 26 that includes the
uprights in the proposed combination surrounds the lens. See Ans. 5
(finding Masuda’s Figure 1 “provides a bezel with protrusions”), 14
(“Appellant seems to argue that a mechanical upright must be separate from
Appeal 2020-000394
Application 15/642,182
12
the bezel, however this is not require by Claim 1 that requires ‘at least one
mechanical upright extending from the first bezel.’ Therefore the
mechanical upright can logically be a part of the bezel”).
First, we note that the Examiner finds the combination of Masuda and
Zhang teaches uprights that extend from the bezel to a height greater than
the height lens LB1 (of optical system 20B) extends from the face or
housing 22. See Non-Final Act. 5–6. Thus, the proposed combination
extends Masuda’s lens barrel 26 such that the existing portion of lens barrel
26 surrounding and holding Masuda’s lenses LA1, LB1, see Masuda ¶ 30,
Figs. 1, 5, 6, would include protrusions extending beyond lenses LA1, LB1.
Masuda’s Figure 6, reproduced below, depicts “rings” surrounding lenses
LA1, LB1 that are the outermost lens of optical systems 20A, 20B:

Figure 6 of Masuda depicts various views of an omnidirectional imaging
system. Masuda ¶ 19. Viewed in light of Figure 1 and Masuda’s written
Appeal 2020-000394
Application 15/642,182
13
description, one understands that the outermost portions of lens barrel 26 (as
lens barrel 26 is depicted and described in Masuda—i.e., prior to modifying
lens barrel 26 to include mechanical uprights extending beyond lens 20B as
the Examiner proposes) form the “rings” surrounding optical systems 20A,
20B. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood, therefore,
that Masuda’s rings (i.e., the outermost portion of lens barrel 26) form a
bezel that completely surrounds lenses LA1, LB1. Modifying lens barrel 26
to include an upright that extends beyond the lenses would not eliminate the
portion of lens barrel 26 that teaches the recited bezel.
For these reasons discussed above, we sustain the rejection of
representative claim 1 as obvious over Masuda and Zhang. For the same
reasons, we also sustain the rejection of claims 2, 3 and 5–12, as obvious
over Masuda and Zhang, which were not argued separately.
CLAIM 4
Appellant separately argues the rejection of dependent claim 4.
Appeal Br. 10, 25–28 (“Ground 2”). Appellant argues that, in addition to
being patentable via dependency from claim 1, Masuda and Zhang do not
teach claim 4’s additionally recited limitation that “each mechanical upright
defines a fin having a concave recess oriented toward the first convex lens
and a convex surface oriented away from the first convex lens.” Appeal
Br. 25–28. Appellant argues Zhang’s protrusions are not “fins” and have no
concave surface. Appeal Br. 27.
The Examiner finds Zhang’s protrusions teach fins that have a
concave recess oriented towards the lens and a concave recess oriented away
from the lens. Non-Final Act. 7 (citing Zhang, Fig. 4); Ans. 14–15. The
Examiner finds Zhang discloses that the protrusions may be different “in
Appeal 2020-000394
Application 15/642,182
14
number and shape” and that one exemplary embodiment has protrusions in
the shape of teeth. Ans. 14 (citing Zhang ¶ 52, Figs. 4, 6). We reproduce
below Zhang’s depiction of an embodiment of pressing ring 105 with
protrusions 147 shaped like “teeth” and separated by valleys 146:

Figure 6 of Zhang illustrates an exemplary pressing ring of a camera case.
Zhang ¶ 32.
We are not persuaded of Examiner error. Both of Zhang’s
embodiments of its protrusions depict protrusions having internal concave
surfaces (i.e., surfaces facing towards an axis perpendicular to the figures
(i.e., coming out of the page) at the center of pressing ring 105 and convex
external surfaces. We see no persuasive evidence that why a person of
ordinary skill in the art would not understand protrusions 145, 147 to be
“fins.” The only reference to fins in Appellant’s Specification provides no
further clarity. See Spec. ¶ 80 (“In the illustrative embodiment of FIGS. 3-7,
as best shown in FIG. 4, the first mechanical upright 307 and the second
Appeal 2020-000394
Application 15/642,182
15
mechanical upright 407 each define fins having a rectangular front cross
section.”). For these reasons, on this record, we sustain the rejection of
dependent claim 4 as obvious over Masuda and Zhang.
CLAIM 13
Appellant separately argues the rejection of dependent claim 13.
Appeal Br. 10, 28 (“Ground 3”). Appellant argues that, in addition to being
patentable via its ultimate dependency from claim 10, Masuda and Zhang do
not teach the additionally recited limitations requiring two imagers disposed
behind two respective lenses where each lens has a field of view greater than
180 degrees. Appeal Br. 28. Specifically, Appellant argues Masuda, as
modified by Zhang, obstructs the peripheral view and, therefore, precludes a
greater-than-180-degree field of view. The Examiner finds Masuda teaches
the recited field of view for the two lenses because it results from having a
convex lens. Non-Final Act. 10.
As we held above, we agree with the Examiner that the proposed
combination need not completely block the field of view of the lenses in the
system resulting from the combination. As discussed above with respect to
claim 1, the field of view of each lens still is greater than 180 degrees, but
the images would be partially obstructed by the modified uprights that
extend beyond the height of the lenses from the face of the device.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of dependent claim 13 as obvious over
Masuda and Zhang.
CLAIMS 14 AND 15
Appellant argues the rejection of dependent claims 14 and 15 as a
group. Appeal Br. 10, 28–31 (“Ground 4”). Therefore, we select claim 14
Appeal 2020-000394
Application 15/642,182
16
as representative of claims 14 and 15, which stand rejected as obvious over
Masuda and Zhang. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appellant asserts that, in addition to being patentable via its
dependency from claim 10, no combination of Masuda, Zhang, and
Lindskog teaches the mechanical structure recited in claim 14. Appeal
Br. 28–30. As discussed above, we find no deficiency in the rejection of
claim 14 and, beyond the arguments made with respect to claim 10,
Appellant does not argue that the proposed combination fails to teach or
suggest any structure additionally recited in dependent claim 14.
Appellant further contends the proposed combination of Masuda,
Zhang, and Lindskog fails to teach claim 14’s additionally recited limitations
(and claim 15’s similar limitations) related to replacing a portion of a first
image obstructed by an upright with a portion from a second image. Appeal
Br. 30–31. Specifically, Appellant asserts Lindskog teaches replacing a
portion of a first image taken at a first time with portions of a second image
taken at a second time, but Lindskog does not teach replacing a portion of an
image obstructed by stationary objects like a mechanical upright, which is
always stationary relative to the respective lens. Appeal Br. 31.
The Examiner finds Lindskog teaches replacing a portion of one
image with a portion of a second related image to remove an undesired
object and to create a desired single image. Non-Final Act. 11 (citing
Lindskog ¶ 77, Fig. 5). The Examiner finds Masuda already teaches taking
two images from complementary fisheye lenses and combining the two
images to generate a single image by using overlapping areas in the two
images. Ans. 17 (citing Masuda ¶ 34). The Examiner explains that
Lindskog is relied on to teach the “notion that the images can be combined
so as to remove obstructions.” Ans. 17 (citing Lindskog ¶ 77, Fig. 5).
Appeal 2020-000394
Application 15/642,182
17
Masuda teaches taking two images having overlapping images and
combining those two images to create a single omnidirectional image.
Masuda ¶ 35. Lindskog teaches the idea that two images may use
differences between the (overlapping) images taken in close temporal
proximity in order to remove or move identified objects. Lindskog, Abstract
(“There is disclosed a method for seamlessly replacing areas in a digital
image with corresponding data from temporally close digital images
depicting substantially the same scene.”); ¶ 10 (“Preferably the images are
similar in such a way that they depict the same scene (comprising the same
photographic elements) and are taken in succession with a fairly small
temporal distance in between the captures.”). Lindskog, therefore,
encompasses using two pictures taken at the same, or nearly the same, time.
“The methods thus allow areas of digital images to be seamlessly replaced.”
Lindskog ¶ 8; see also Lindskog ¶ 8 (“For example, an area of an image
depicting human beings with closed eyes may be replaced with a
corresponding area from another (similar) image wherein the eyes of the
(same) human being is open”). Notably, “the source image and the target
image do not need to be perfectly (i.e. pixel-by-pixel) aligned.” Lindskog
¶ 14. In one embodiment, Lindskog removes an undesired portion in one
image (i.e., an obstruction) with a portion in a second image that does not
contain the obstruction. Lindskog ¶ 77.
As explained above, a “person of ordinary skill is also a person of
ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. Given these
disclosures in Masuda and Lindskog, we agree with the Examiner that the
proposed combination teaches or suggests removing the mechanical uprights
from a portion of a first image taken using the first lens with a portion of a
second image taken using the second lens. The weight of the evidence
Appeal 2020-000394
Application 15/642,182
18
indicates that a person of ordinary skill in the art considering Lindskog and
Masuda’s device modified to include mechanical uprights that partially
obstruct the field of view would have used Lindskog’s techniques to remove
obstructions from the overlapping portions of the images taken from the two
complementary fisheye lenses simultaneously (or near-simultaneously).
For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 14 as
obvious over Masuda, Zhang, and Lindskog. For the same reasons, we also
sustain the rejection of dependent claim 15, which was not argued
separately, as obvious over Masuda, Zhang, and Lindskog.
CLAIMS 16, 17, AND 20
Appellant argues the rejection of claims 16 and 20 as a group. Appeal
Br. 10, 32 (“Ground 5”). Appellant does not separately argue claim 17,
which directly depends from claim 16. Therefore, we select claim 16 as
representative of claims 16, 17, and 20, which stand rejected as obvious over
Masuda, Zhang, Lindskog. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appellant argues claim 16 is not obvious in view of Masuda, Zhang,
and Lindskog for the same reasons asserted with respect to claims 14 and 15.
Appeal Br. 32. For the reasons discussed above regarding claim 14, we
disagree. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of representative claim 16 as
obvious over Masuda, Zhang, and Lindskog. For the same reasons, we also
sustain the rejection of claim 17 and 20, which were not argued separately,
as obvious over Masuda, Zhang, and Lindskog.
CLAIMS 18 AND 19
Appellant separately argues the rejection of dependent claim 18.
Appeal Br. 10, 32–33 (“Ground 6”). Appellant does not separately argue
claim 19, which directly depends from claim 18. Therefore, we select claim
Appeal 2020-000394
Application 15/642,182
19
18 as representative of claims 18 and 19, which stand rejected as obvious
over Masuda, Zhang, Lindskog. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appellant asserts that, in addition to being patentable via its
dependency from claim 16, Masuda, Zhang, and Lindskog fail to teach claim
18’s additionally recited limitations that “the [obstructed] one or more
portions are at 3 o’clock and 9 o’clock positions of the first image.” Appeal
Br. 32–33. Specifically, Appellant argues Zhang teaches protrusions that
result in “obstructions everywhere other than the 2 o’clock, 4 o’clock, 8
o’clock, and 10 o’clock position,” such that any “position from 11 o’clock to
1 o’clock and from 5 o’clock to 7 o’clock would be obstructed,” which is
“not what is claimed.” Appeal Br. 33. The Examiner finds Zhang teaches
various arrangements of protrusions and valleys. See Non-Final Act. 9–11
(citing Zhang, Fig. 3); Ans. 14 (finding Zhang “allows for ‘having different
protrusions in number and shape’” citing Zhang ¶ 52).
As seen in Zhang’s Figures, see, e.g., Zhang, Fig. 3 (reproduced
above), one embodiment discloses protrusions at 3 o’clock and 9 o’clock, in
addition to larger protrusions. Another embodiment depicts multiple
protrusions of a different shape and Zhang explains that the protrusions and
valleys may be variously arranged. Zhang ¶ 52, Fig. 6. Claim 18 is open-
ended and merely recites that the first image has portions that are obstructed
by a mechanical upright at the “3 o’clock and 9 o’clock positions.” Zhang
discloses at least some embodiments with protrusions opposite each other
and, accordingly, when the camera is aligned such that those protrusions
align on the horizontal axis, that would teach or suggests portions of an
image that have obstructions at 3 o’clock and 9 o’clock, as recited.
For these reasons we sustain the rejection of representative claim 18
as obvious over Masuda, Zhang, and Lindskog. For the same reasons, we
Appeal 2020-000394
Application 15/642,182
20
also sustain the rejection of dependent claim 19, which was not argued
separately, as obvious over Masuda, Zhang, and Lindskog.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed
1–13 103 Masuda, Zhang 1–13
14–20 103 Masuda, Zhang, Lindskog 14–20
Overall
Outcome
1–20

RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended. 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED