Ex Parte Chang

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 21, 2017

13737920 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 21, 2017)

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.
13/737,920 01/09/2013 Yen-Min Chang PIIP0158USA 5598
27765 7590 08/23/2017
NORTH AMFRTOA TNTFT T FOTT TAT PROPFRTY TORPOR ATTON
EXAMINER
5F., No.389, Fuhe Rd., Yonghe Dist.
New Taipei City,
FOSSELMAN, JOEL W
TAIWAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2662
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/23/2017 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):
Patent. admin. uspto. Rev @ naipo .com
mis.ap.uspto@naipo.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YEN-MIN CHANG
Appeal 2017-002882
Application 13/737,92c1
Technology Center 2600
Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, JOHN P. PINKERTON,
and NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—4, 7—10, and 13—16, which are all of the pending
claims. Claims 5, 6, 11, 12, 17, and 18 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction
over the pending rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellant identifies PixArt Imaging Inc. as the real party in interest. (App.
Br. 2.)
Appeal 2017-002882
Application 13/737,920
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention is directed to performing
an automatic focus function upon a specific movable object in a real-time
manner. (Abstract.)
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal:
1. A method capable of performing an automatic focus
function upon a single specific movable target object in a real­
time manner, the method being applicable to a photographic
apparatus with the automatic focus function, the method
comprising:
capturing a real-time image within a field of view (FOV)
of a lens;
comparing images of a plurality of image areas of the
real-time image with a feature image of the single specific
movable target object to identify an image area corresponding
to the feature image of the single specific movable target object,
wherein the feature image of the single specific movable target
object is identified within the real-time image and corresponds
to at least a portion of a dressing characteristic of a person, an
accessory characteristic of a person, a non-physiological
possession characteristic of a person, or an animal characteristic
without including human characteristic; and
performing continuously automatic focus upon the
identified image area, to provide an indication for a user to
photograph to obtain an image or a film.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 10, 13, and 16 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Onozawa (US 2009/0141141
Al, published June 4, 2009), Kumhyr (US 6,975,346 B2, published Dec. 13,
2
Appeal 2017-002882
Application 13/737,920
2005), Clarke, Sr. et al. (US 5,689,241, issued Nov. 18, 1997) and
Yoshimura et al. (US 5,677,733, issued Oct. 14, 1997). (Final Act. 2—5.)
The Examiner rejected claims 2, 3, 9, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Onozawa, Kumhyr, Clarke, Yoshimura,
and Kim et al. (US 7,885,531 B2, issued Feb. 8, 2011). (Final Act. 5—6.)
ISSUE ON APPEAL
Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following
issue2:
Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Onozawa,
Kumhyr, Clarke, and Yoshimura teaches or suggests the independent
claim 1 limitation, “performing continuously automatic focus upon the
identified image area, to provide an indication for a user to photograph to
obtain an image or a film,” and the commensurate limitation of independent
claims 7 and 13. (App. Br. 6—10.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments the Examiner erred. We disagree with Appellant’s arguments,
and we adopt as our own (1) the pertinent findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the Final Office Action from which this appeal is taken
(Final Act. 2—6) and (2) the corresponding findings and reasons set forth by
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the positions of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed June 22, 2016); the Reply
Brief (filed Dec. 13, 2016); the Final Office Action (mailed Feb. 12, 2016);
and the Examiner’s Answer (mailed Oct. 20, 2016) for the respective details.
3
Appeal 2017-002882
Application 13/737,920
the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal
Brief (Ans. 6—9). We concur with the applicable conclusions reached by the
Examiner, and emphasize the following.
In regard to the claim limitation at issue, Appellant separately argues
the Yoshimura, Clarke, and Kumhyr references: “[Yoshimura] is silent on
indicating a user to photograph to obtain an image or a film”; “Clarke’s
disclosure is unable to photograph to obtain an image (or a film) based on an
indication since the driver loses or is most likely to lose control of a
vehicle”; and, “Kumhyr merely teaches image recognition but fails to
suggest performing image recognition to provide an indication for a user to
photograph to obtain an image or a film.” (App. Br. 7—8.) This argument is
unpersuasive because, as to the limitation at issue, the Examiner’s rejection
is based on the combination of Yoshimura and Clarke:
Clarke discloses continuously focusing on an identified image
area, and Yoshimura discloses providing a light measuring
frame, that is visible to the user, and continuously focusing the
lens based on the location of the light measuring frame.
Yoshimura further discloses that “the embodiment thus always
performs adequate focus adjustment as well as optimum
exposure control by tracing the object with the frame 101 even
when the object moves” (col 11 lines 61-64). ... A visible
frame, especially one that is used to indicate a focus area, is
considered an indication for a user to photograph. The light
measuring frame of Yoshimura clearly serves to indicate, to a
user, that an object’s exposure is optimum and adequate focus
adjustment has been performed. Indicating that an object is
focused and is properly exposed is a clear indication, to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, to
photograph to obtain an image or a film.
(Ans. 6—7.) Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references
individually where, as here, the ground of unpatentability is based upon the
4
Appeal 2017-002882
Application 13/737,920
teachings of a combination of references. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d
1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Rather, the test for obviousness is whether the
combination of references, taken as a whole, would have suggested the
patentee’s invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claims 1, 7, and 13 over Onozawa, Kumhyr, Clarke, and
Yoshimura. We also sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 4, 8, 10,
and 16 over Onozawa, Kumhyr, Clarke, and Yoshimura, and of claims 2, 3,
9, 14, and 15 over Onozawa, Kumhyr, Clarke, Yoshimura, and Kim, which
rejections are not argued separately with particularity. (App. Br. 10.)
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—4, 7—10, and
13-16.
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). See C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
5