Ex Parte Cote et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 9, 2017

13485235 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 9, 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.
13/485,235 05/31/2012 Guy Cote P14818US1 /APPL:0298 3120
73576 7590
APPLE INC. - Fletcher
c/o Fletcher Yoder, PC
P.O. Box 692289
Houston, TX 77269-2289
EXAMINER
PHAM, QUAN L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2662
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/11/2017 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):
docket@fyiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GUY COTE, JOSEPH ANTHONY PETOLINO JR.,
SUK HWAN LIM, and D. AMNON SILVERSTEIN1
Appeal 2015-006419
Application 13/485,235
Technology Center 2600
Before JASON V. MORGAN, NABEEL U. KHAN, and
KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final
Rejection of claims 1—29. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Appellants identify Apple Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2015-006419
Application 13/485,235
Invention
Appellants disclose “[sjystems and methods for correcting intensity
drop-offs due to geometric properties of lenses.” Abst.
Exemplary Claims
Independent claims 1 and 16, reproduced below, are exemplary for
their respective rejections. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013),
1. A method for applying lens shading correction to image
data, comprising:
receiving an input pixel of the image data, wherein the image
data is acquired using an image sensor;
determining a color component of the input pixel;
accessing a gain grid by pointing to the gain grid in external
memory, wherein the gain grid comprises a plurality of grid
points distributed in horizontal and vertical directions for an
entire sensor, wherein each of the plurality of grid points is
associated with a lens shading gain selected based upon the
color of the input pixel;
determining the location of the input pixel relative to the gain
grid;
if the location of the input pixel corresponds directly to one of
the plurality of grid points, applying the lens shading gain
associated with the directly corresponding grid point to the
input pixel; and
if the location of the input pixel does not correspond directly to
one of the plurality of grid points, identifying a nearest set of
grid points that enclose the input pixel, determining a lens
shading gain by interpolating the lens shading gains associated
with each of the set of grid points, and applying the interpolated
lens shading gain to the input pixel.
2
Appeal 2015-006419
Application 13/485,235
16. An image signal processing circuit comprising:
an interface configured to receive image data from an image
sensor of an imaging device; and
pipe processing logic configured to perform a set of processing
operations on the image data, wherein one of the set of
processing operations is a lens shading correction operation,
and wherein the pipe processing logic comprises lens shading
correction logic configured to:
receive an input pixel of the image data;
access a gain grid by pointing to the gain grid in external
memory;
determine the location of the input pixel within a lens
shading correction region defined within an imaging
frame of the image sensor relative to the gain grid having
a plurality of grid points distributed horizontally and
vertically, wherein each of the plurality of grid points is
associated with a lens shading gain;
determine an interpolated lens shading gain for the input
pixel using bilinear interpolation of the lens shading
gains associated with a nearest set of grid points
enclosing the input pixel;
determine a radial lens shading gain as a function of a
global gain parameter associated with the color of the
input pixel and a radial distance between the center of the
lens shading correction region and the location of the
input pixel;
apply the interpolated lens shading gain and the radial
lens shading gain to the input pixel; and
collect and store information related to: one or more pixel
values inputted to the lens shading correction logic, one
or more pixel values outputted from the lens shading
correction logic, or both.
3
Appeal 2015-006419
Application 13/485,235
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 16—26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Cote (2011/0091101 Al; April 21, 2011). Final Act. 4—8.2
The Examiner rejects claims 1—15 and 27—29 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cote and Hunter (US 8,463,068 B2;
June 11, 2013). Final Act. 8—16.
KEY ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding Cote teaches or suggests
independent claim 16’s “lens shading correction logic configured to:
. . . collect and store information related to: one or more pixel values
inputted to the lens shading correction logic, one or more pixel values
outputted from the lens shading correction logic, or both”?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding Hunter teaches or suggests
independent claim 1 ’s “accessing a gain grid by pointing to the gain grid in
2 Although the Examiner states the rejection is applied under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) for anticipation by a published application of Guy Cote (US 2011/
0090242; April 21, 2011), the supporting citations reference a patent of Cote
(US 8,472,712; June 25, 2013) that is only § 102(e) prior art. Final Act. 4,
8. Further complicating matters, the published application and patent are
from different application families (having family ID numbers respectively
of 43879326 and 43304063). To reconcile the above, we view the rejection
as presented under § 102(b) and over the patent’s published application
counterpart (US 2011/0091101 Al; April 21, 2011). In other words, we
view the rejection as mistakenly stating that US 2011/0090242 is applied,
but plainly applying US 2011/0091101 Al. All citations to Cote herein are
to the issued ’712 patent, per the rejection. Final Act. 4.
4
Appeal 2015-006419
Application 13/485,235
external memory, wherein the gain grid comprises a plurality of grid points
distributed in horizontal and vertical directions for an entire sensor”?
ANALYSIS
Anticipation Rejection of Claims 16—29 (First Issue)
The Examiner rejects claims 16—29 as anticipated by Cote. The
Examiner finds that Cote’s black level compensation (BLC) units 232, 236
and lens shading correction (LSC) unit 234 collectively disclose
representative claim 16’s at-issue “lens shading correction logic configured
to . . . collect and store information related to: one or more pixel values
inputted to the lens shading correction logic, one or more pixel values
outputted from the lens shading correction logic, or both.” Ans. 2—3. In
doing so, the Examiner further finds that the claimed collecting and storing
is taught by the BLC units 232, 236 counting the quantity of pixel values
clipped therein. Final Act. 5.
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because Cote’s BLC units
232, 236, which perform the clipping and counting, are not part of LSC
logic. App. Br. 9. In particular, Appellants argue “Cote does not appear to
disclose collecting and/or storing the recited lens shading correction input
and/or output information using the lens shading correction logic (LSC logic
234 of Cote).” Id.
The Examiner does not present findings showing that Cote’s LSC unit
234 discloses collecting and storing information as claimed. Rather, the
Examiner finds that the BLC units 232, 236 combined with Cote’s LSC unit
234 disclose the claimed lens shading correction logic. Ans. 2—3. In the
Reply Brief, Appellants contend that the Examiner unreasonably redraws
5
Appeal 2015-006419
Application 13/485,235
Cote’s BLC units 232, 236 and LSC unit 234 as a singular logic unit. Reply
Br. 2-4.
We find Appellants’ arguments persuasive. Claim 16 recites that the
lens shading correction logic is what is configured to collect and store
information as recited. Cote’s Figure 15 depicts an image signal processing
unit with LSC unit 234 (i.e., lens shading correction logic) that receives data
from BLC unit 232 and sends data to BLC unit 236. However, the BLC
units and LSC unit are depicted as separate units in Cote and the Examiner
has not provided findings showing that the Cote discloses configuring LSC
unit 234 to collect and store information in the manner recited.
Accordingly we do not sustain the anticipation rejection of claims 16—
26 over Cote.
Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1—15 and 27—29
(Second Issue)
The Examiner rejects claims 1—15 and 27—29 as obvious over Cote
and Hunter. Final Act. 8—16. The Examiner finds that Cote’s gain grid and
Hunter’s correction value curves Fx(x), Fy(y) collectively suggest
representative claim 1 ’s at-issue “gain grid compris[ing] a plurality of grid
points distributed in horizontal and vertical directions for an entire sensor,
wherein each of the plurality of grid points is associated with a lens shading
gain selected based upon the color of the input pixel[.]” Final Act. 9-10;
Ans. 7. Appellants contend the Examiner erred because claim 1 ’s “gain grid
is clearly a more flexible and/or granular approach than Hunter’s [correction
value curves Fx(x), Fy(y).]” App. Br. 13. In the Reply Brief, Appellants
add:
6
Appeal 2015-006419
Application 13/485,235
[T]he examiner suggested that Cote could be combined with
Hunter to disclose grid points for an entire sensor, based upon
a) grid points of Cote and b) expanded curves of Hunter.
Examiner’s Answer, page 6. However, such analysis is
erroneous. Hunter appears to teach away from the use of grid
points, because even the less granular curves add additional
cost.
Reply Br. 5.
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive because they do not
establish that Hunter’s object of minimizing the quantity of correction
curves constitutes more than a mere preference to reduce costs. A reference
does not teach away if it merely discloses an alternative invention but does
not “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage” investigation into the
claimed invention. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see
also Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
(“[A] given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and
disadvantages[. This] does not necessarily obviate motivation to
combine.”).
Furthermore, Appellants’ arguments neglect that the Examiner relies
on Hunter as suggesting expansion of Cote’s gain grid from edge-to-edge of
the pixel array; not as suggesting an increase of the gain grid’s granularity.
Final Act. 9—10; Ans. 7. That is, the Examiner finds Cote does not disclose
the gain grid as spanning from edge-to-edge of the pixel array, but instead
relies on Hunter to suggest implementing gain values from edge-to-edge.
Ans. 7.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not shown the Examiner
erred in finding Cote’s gain grid and Hunter’s correction value curves Fx(x),
Fy(y) collectively suggest claim 1 ’s gain grid. Accordingly, as no further
7
Appeal 2015-006419
Application 13/485,235
argument is presented, the obviousness rejection of claims 1—15 and 27—29
over Cote and Hunter is sustained.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—15 and 27—29.
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 16—26.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
8