Ex Parte Guenter et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 23, 2017

13720872 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 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.
13/720,872 12/19/2012 Brian K. Guenter 337196.02 1642
39254 7590 01/25/2017
Barta, Jones & Foley, P.C.
(Patent Group - Microsoft Corporation)
2805 Dallas Parkway
Suite 222
Plano, TX 75093
EXAMINER
WANG, XI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2661
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/25/2017 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):
u sdocket @ micro soft .com
uspto@dockettrak.com
docket @ bj fip. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRIAN K. GUENTER and NEEL S. JOSHI
Appeal 2016-005908
Application 13/720,872
Technology Center 2600
Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1—20. Non-Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claims 1—6, 8—10, and 12—20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
obvious over Ito (US 7,626,621 B2; issued Dec. 1, 2009) and Wenstrand
(US 7,598,996 B2; issued Oct. 6, 2009). Non-Final Act. 3-7.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Ito,
Wenstrand, and Hong (US 2008/0081396 Al; issued Apr. 3, 2008). Non-
Final. Act. 8.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Ito,
Wenstrand, and Gerald (US 6,774,635 Bl; issued Aug. 10, 2004). Non-
Final Act. 8—9.
Appeal 2016-005908
Application 13/720,872
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to “an image sensor that is controllable
curved to adapt for differences in lens focal lengths.” Abstract. Claim 1 is
illustrative and reproduced below:
1. A system comprising, a sensor configured to capture first image
data received through a camera lens, the sensor further configured to be
automatically curved by a curve controller, based upon feedback data
corresponding to the captured first image data, the feedback data being used
to increase image quality of second image data.
ANALYSIS
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1-6, 8-10, and 12-20 over Ito
AND WENSTRAND
The Examiner finds Ito and Wenstrand teach all limitations of claim 1.
Non-Final Act. 3^4.
Appellants present the following principal arguments:
i. “Wenstrand merely determines whether the position of the lens
needs to be adjusted in contrast to describing curving the sensor as enabled
by independent Claim 1.” App. Br. 9.
ii. “[W]hen the image quality data in Wenstrand for changing the
position of the lens is applied to the system of Ito, the system of Ito would
not be operable because translational data of a lens cannot be used to change
the curvature of the sensor described in Ito.” App. Br. 9; see also Reply Br.
1-7.
We do not see any error in the contested findings of the Examiner. We
concur with the Examiner’s legal conclusion of obviousness.
2
Appeal 2016-005908
Application 13/720,872
Regarding Appellants’ argument (i),
[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed
invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in
the art.
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (citations omitted).
The Examiner finds Ito and Wenstrand, collectively, teach curving the
sensor as set forth in claim 1. The Examiner finds Ito teaches all limitations
of claim 1, except for “Ito does not disclose adjusting curvature based upon
feedback data corresponding to the captured first image data to increase
image quality of second image data." Non-Final Act. 3 (emphasis added);
see also Ito Abstract (“a curvature changing portion which changes a
curvature of the solid-state image pickup element”). The Examiner finds
“Wenstrand discloses adjusting a focus quality of a second image to be
captured based upon feedback data corresponding to the captured first image
data.” Non-Final Act. 3 (citing Wenstrand col. 6,1. 42; col. 7,11. 2—7;
Abstract); see also Wenstrand Abstract (“determining whether a position of
a lens from the image sensor within the digital camera module should be
altered to improve a focus quality of subsequently captured images”). We
agree with and adopt these findings as our own. The Examiner reasons:
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious for a person
of ordinary skill in the art to utilize feedback data corresponding
to the captured first image data as disclosed by Wenstrand to
adjust image sensor as disclosed by Ito in order to improve focus
quality of subsequently captured images more accurately by
figuring out how much adjustment needs to be done through the
test image data.
3
Appeal 2016-005908
Application 13/720,872
Non-Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 14—16. We agree with and adopt this
reasoning as our own. We concur with the Examiner’s conclusion.
In more detail, when Wenstrand’s teaching (Wenstrand Abstract) of
adjusting the position of the lens with respect to the image sensor based
upon feedback data corresponding to captured image data is combined with
Ito’s teaching (Ito Abstract) of changing curvature of the image sensor,
modifying Ito’s system such that the image sensor’s curvature is changed
(thereby further changing the position of the image sensor with respect to the
lens) based upon feedback data corresponding to captured image data would
have been a predictable use of prior art elements according to their
established functions—an obvious improvement. As the U.S. Supreme
Court has explained:
When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it,
either in the same field or a different one. If a person of
ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103
likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique
has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary
skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar
devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless
its actual application is beyond his or her skill. Sakraida [v. Ag
Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273 (1976)] and Anderson’s-Black Rock[,
Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57 (1969)] are
illustrative—a court must ask whether the improvement is more
than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their
established functions.
KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
Further, regarding Appellants’ argument (ii), the combined teachings
of the references do not require using translational data of a lens to change
the curvature of the image sensor of Ito; rather, as discussed above, a skilled
artisan would have understood, in light of the collective teachings of the
4
Appeal 2016-005908
Application 13/720,872
references, that adjustment based upon feedback data corresponding to
captured image data could be made via adjusting the lens (see Wenstrand
Abstract) and further made via adjusting the sensor curvature (thereby
further changing the position of the image sensor with respect to the lens)
(see Ito Abstract). See Ans. 14—16.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, as well as
claims 2—6 and 8—10, which are not separately argued with particularity.
Regarding claim 12, Appellants present the same principal arguments
as presented with respect to claim 1. See App. Br. 10-11. Thus, for reasons
discussed above, we do not see any error in the contested findings of the
Examiner nor do we see any error in the Examiner’s legal conclusion of
obviousness.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 12, as well as
claims 13—15, which are not separately argued with particularity.
Regarding claim 16, this claim recites, in pertinent part with added
emphasis, “using the focal length data to coarsely adjust the sensor
curvature, and using the image quality data to finely adjust the sensor
curvature by iterating over image data obtained from a plurality of captured
images.’ ''
Appellants argue that the curvature in Ito, once set, is fixed. See App.
Br. 11-12.
We do not see any error in the contested findings of the Examiner nor
do we see any error in the Examiner’s legal conclusion of obviousness. See
Final Act. 6, Ans. 17—18.
In reaching our decision, we emphasize that a skilled artisan would
have understood, in light of the collective teachings of the references, that
5
Appeal 2016-005908
Application 13/720,872
adjustment based upon feedback data corresponding to captured image data
could be made via adjusting the lens translationally (see Wenstrand
Abstract) and further made via adjusting the sensor curvature (thereby
further changing the position of the image sensor with respect to the lens)
(see Ito Abstract). See also Ito col. 29,11. 4—5 (“the curvature of CCD 2 may
be adjusted in accordance with the distance information obtained by the AF
sensor 340.”) and Wenstrand col. 8,11. 24-41 (iterative process for focus
optimization).
Thus, Ito and Wenstrand collectively teach “using the focal length
data to coarsely adjust the sensor curvature,” (see Ito Abstract; col. 29,11. 4—
5) “and using the image quality data to finely adjust the sensor curvature by
iterating over image data obtained from a plurality of captured images” (see
Wenstrand Abstract; col. 8,11. 24-41; Ito Abstract).
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, Appellants present the same principal arguments
as presented with respect to claim 1. See App. Br. 12—13. Thus, for reasons
discussed above, we do not see any error in the contested findings of the
Examiner nor do we see any error in the Examiner’s legal conclusion of
obviousness.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 17, as well as
claims 18—20, which are not separately argued with particularity.
The Obviousness Rejection of Claim 11 over Ito, Wenstrand, and
Hong
The Examiner finds Ito, Wenstrand, and Hong teach all limitations of
claim 11. Non-Final Act. 8.
6
Appeal 2016-005908
Application 13/720,872
Appellants argue Hong fails to overcome the purported deficiencies of
Ito and Wenstrand. See App. Br. 13—14.
For reasons explained above when addressing claim 1, we, therefore,
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 11.
The Obviousness Rejection of Claim 7 over Ito, Wenstrand, and
Gerald
The Examiner finds Ito, Wenstrand, and Gerald teach all limitations of
claim 7. Non-Final Act. 8—9.
Appellants argue Gerald fails to overcome the purported deficiencies
of Ito and Wenstrand. See App. Br. 13—14.
For reasons explained above when addressing claim 1, we, therefore,
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7.
ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—20 is affirmed.
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).
AFFIRMED
7