Ex Parte Cote et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 9, 201713485235 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 9, 2017) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation