Ex Parte Cross et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 29, 2016

13094460 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/094,460 04/26/2011 Kyle Cross 33438 7590 03/03/2016 TERRILE, CANNATTI, CHAMBERS & HOLLAND, LLP P.O. BOX 203518 AUSTIN, TX 78720 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. DC-18859 1688 EXAMINER JOSHI, SUNITA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2656 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/03/2016 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): tmunoz@tcchlaw.com kchambers@tcchlaw.com heather@tcchlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KYLE CROSS, CARL TON ANDREWS, and THOMAS A. SHOWS Appeal2014-006620 Application 13/094,460 1 Technology Center 2600 Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JON M. JURGOV AN, and KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Introduction Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-20, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. 1 Appellants indicate the Real Party in Interest is Dell Products, L.P. App. Br. 1. Appeal2014-006620 Application 13/094,460 Invention The claimed invention relates to the field of information handling system audiovisual communication, and more particularly to white balance adjustment of an image at an information handling system. Spec. i-f 1. Exemplary Claim Exemplary claim 1 is reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized: 1. An information handling system comprising: a processor operable to process information; memory interfaced with the processor and operable to store the information; a display interfaced with the processor and operable to present the information as images; a camera interfaced with the processor and operable to capture images as visual information; a white balance module operable to analyze the visual information to adjust the presentation of the images at the display based upon a white baiance associated with the visuai information; and an image analyzer interfaced with the white balance module, the image analyzer operable to analyze the visual information to identify a predetermined image having a perimeter and to alter the white balance module to analyze only visual information within the perimeter to adjust the presentation of the images at the display including visual information outside the perimeter. Applied Prior Art The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims: Jenkins Michrowski US 2006/0082676 Al US 2012/0007940 Al 2 Apr. 20, 2006 Jan. 12,2012 Appeal2014-006620 Application 13/094,460 Rejections Claims 1-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jenkins and Michrowski. Claims 9-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Michrowski. ANALYSIS Section 103 Rejection - Independent Claim 1 Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1 because the combination of Jenkins and Michrowski fails to teach or suggest "to alter the white balance module to analyze only visual information within the perimeter to adjust the presentation of the images at the display including visual information outside the perimeter." App. Br. 4. Appellants argue "neither Jenkins nor Michrowski suggest analyzing a portion of a display to correct an entire display or at least an area other than the analyzed portions." App. Br. 4--5. We disagree. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Michrowski teaches "blurring of the image outside the detected face, which can be considered as adjusting the presentation of the images including visual information outside the perimeter." Ans. 3 (citing Michrowski Abstract; i-fi-130-33, 39). Moreover, Jenkins, which was also cited by the Examiner, expressly teaches, "the luminance values of the pixels of interest may be analyzed to determine if there are luminance values above a predetermined upper limit. If not, the exposure correction may indicate that the exposure of the image needs to be increased. Jenkins i133 (emphasis added). 3 Appeal2014-006620 Application 13/094,460 Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner's finding that the combination of Jenkins and Michrowski teaches or suggests "to alter the white balance module to analyze only visual information within the perimeter to adjust the presentation of the images at the display including visual information outside the perimeter," as recited in claim 1. Section 102 Rejection - Independent Claims 9, 16 Appellants contend the Examiner erred rejecting independent claims 9 and 16 because Michrowski fails to disclose "performing a white balance of the entire image based upon an analysis of light associated with the perimeter and excluding light outside the perimeter," as recited in claim 9 and similarly in claim 16. Appellants argue, "nothing in Michrowski discloses applying a white balance adjustment for a part of an image to the presentation of an entire image." App. Br. 3. We agree. "[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability." In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). "[A]nticipation of a claim under Â§ 102 can be found only if the prior art reference discloses every element of the claim .... " In re King, 801F.2d1324, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. Am. Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1457 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). "[A]bsence from the reference of any claimed element negates anticipation." Kloster Speedsteel AB v. Crucible Inc., 793 F.2d 1565, 1571 (Fed. Cir 1986). Here, the Examiner finds Michrowski teaches "adjustment to a detected face and also teaches blurring of the image outside the detected face, which can be considered as adjusting the presentation of the images including visual information outside the perimeter." Ans. 4--5 (citing 4 Appeal2014-006620 Application 13/094,460 iviichrowski i1i130-33, 39). Claim 9, however, requires "performing a white balance of the entire image based upon an analysis of light associated with the perimeter", not merely "blurring the image" or "adjusting the presentation of the image" as the Examiner finds. We are persuaded the Examiner erred. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 9 and 16, along with claims 10-15 and 17-20, which depend therefrom. Remaining Claims 2---8 Appellants have not presented separate, substantive arguments with respect to claims 2-8. See App. Br. 7-10. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012). DECISION We AFFIIUvf the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-8. We REVERSE the Examiner's rejection of claims 9-20. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 5