Ex Parte Fiess et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 30, 2016

13284299 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2016)

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.
13/284,299 10/28/2011 Reinhold FIESS 10191/7146 9371
24972 7590 12/02/2016
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
1301 Avenue of the Americas
NEW YORK, NY 10019-6022
EXAMINER
MIKESKA, NEIL R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2485
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/02/2016 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):
nyipdocket@nortonrosefulbright.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte REINHOLD FIESS and ANNETTE FREDERIKSEN
Appeal 2016-000908
Application 13/2 84,2991
Technology Center 2100
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, SHARON FENICK, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
FENICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—10, all the pending claims in the
present application. (Appeal Br. 1.) We have jurisdiction over the appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(1).
We REVERSE.
Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to a camera system including an image
sensor and a switchable optical element. In a first switching state, the
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Robert Bosch GmbH.
(Appeal Br. 1.)
Appeal 2016-000908
Application 13/284,299
switchable optical element is part of a first camera optical system, which
detects and images a first surrounding on the image sensor. In a second
switching state, the switchable optical element is part of a second camera
optical system, which detects and images a second surrounding on the image
sensor. (Spec., Abstract.)
Illustrative Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below with emphases added, is illustrative:
1. A camera system for a motor vehicle, comprising:
an image sensor for outputting image signals;
a first camera optical system for detecting a first
surrounding and for imaging the first surrounding on the image
sensor at a first object distance; and
a second camera optical system for detecting a second
surrounding and for imaging the second surrounding on the
image sensor at a second object distance which differs from the
first object distance;
wherein a switchable optical element which is configured
to be (i) part of the first camera optical system in a first
switching state of the switchable optical element, and (ii) part
of the second camera optical system in a second switching state
of the switchable optical element.
Rejection
Appellants appeal the following rejection:
Claims 1—10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Dowski et al. (US 2011/0085050 Al; Apr. 14, 2011) (“Dowski”) and
Chen (US 8,007,187 Bl; Aug. 30, 2011). (Final Action 2-5.)
ANALYSIS
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of
Dowski and Chen teaches or suggests a switchable optical element
2
Appeal 2016-000908
Application 13/284,299
configured to be, in a first switching state, part of a first camera optical
system for imaging a first surrounding on an image sensor, and, in a second
switching state, part of a second camera optical system for imaging a second
surrounding on the image sensor, as in claim 1 ?
Dowski relates to an imaging system forming an optical image,
including two regions of best focus corresponding to different, discontiguous
object distance ranges. (Dowski Abstract, || 3—4, 34, 43, 45, 81—83, Fig.
51.) The Examiner finds that Dowski teaches the first and second camera
optical systems of Claim 1, in the image sensor 5150 and the two optical
systems which provide Dowski’s two regions of best focus imaged onto that
sensor. (Final Action 2.) However, as the Examiner acknowledges, Dowski
does not disclose a switchable optical element configured to be part of a first
camera optical system in a first switching state and a second camera optical
system in a second switching state. (Id. at 3.)
Chen discloses a single-lens reflex camera system which includes a
smart glass element to provide the operator with a representation of the
scene through a viewfinder, or alternatively to allow the light to reach an
image-sensing device for photographic exposure. (Chen Abstract.) The
Examiner finds that the combination of this smart glass element from Chen
and the teachings of Dowski teach the claimed switchable optical element as
part of two optical systems. (Final Action 3.)
Appellants argue that the combination of Chen and Dowski does not
teach the disputed switchable optical element because Chen teaches a
switchable element that switches between providing an image to an image
sensor or, alternately, to a viewfinder instead of to the image sensor.
(Appeal Br. 5; Reply Br. 4.) Thus, Appellants argue, the combination of
3
Appeal 2016-000908
Application 13/284,299
Chen and Dowski does not teach or suggest the disputed switchable element,
which is switchable to be alternately part of a first and a second optical
system, each of which provide an image to the same image sensor. (Appeal
Br. 5; Reply Br. 4.)
Additionally, Appellants argue that, to the extent the Examiner finds
Dowski to include two optical modes, these modes “are not two different
temporal modes, one to be applied when a switching element is in a first
state and one to be applied when the switching element is in a second state.”
(Appeal Br. 3; Reply Br. 4.) Additionally, Appellants argue that in Chen the
same image is always incident on the element the Examiner maps to the
disputed switchable optical element. (Id.)
We do not agree with Appellants’ argument implying that there is
only one way in which Dowski and Chen might be combined. (Appeal Br.
4—5; Reply Br. 2—3.) However, we are persuaded of error in the Examiner’s
finding that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
add a switchable optical element in a way that selectively absorbs light from
one of the optical systems of Dowski in order to “absorb light from the
secondary path thereby reducing potential cross-talk from reflections or
refractions between paths.” (Answer 6.) There is no reference provided for
why one of ordinary skill in the art would consider these factors in either of
the two prior art references. In Dowski, as Appellants argue, there is no
indication that only one of the mapped optical systems might be active at
any point in time, and in Chen an entire image is either provided to a sensor
or diverted to a viewfinder. Neither reference contains any consideration of
interference in multiple paths included in the image or an indication that
some paths making up an image might not be part of the image which
4
Appeal 2016-000908
Application 13/284,299
arrives at the sensor or viewfinder as the Examiner finds to be taught or
suggested by the combination.
Therefore, we find Appellants’ arguments regarding the disputed
limitation to be persuasive. Because we agree with at least one of the
arguments advanced by Appellants, we need not reach the merits of
Appellants’ other arguments.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection
of independent claim 1, and of independent claim 8 containing
commensurate limitations. Additionally, we do not sustain the rejections of
dependent claims 2—7, 9, and 10.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejections of claims 1—10 over
Dowski and Chen.
REVERSED
5