Ex Parte Lim et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 27, 2012

10419984 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 27, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 10/419,984 04/22/2003 Chae-Whan Lim 45054 1906 1609 7590 12/27/2012 ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, L.L.P. 1300 19TH STREET, N.W. SUITE 600 WASHINGTON,, DC 20036 EXAMINER PASIEWICZ, DANIEL M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2661 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/27/2012 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte CHAE-WHAN LIM and SANG HYUN LEE ____________________ Appeal 2011-001808 Application 10/419,984 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before THU A. DANG, JAMES R. HUGHES, and GREGORY J. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges. DANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-001808 Application 10/419,984 2 I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1-15 and 17 (App. Br. 4). Claim 16 has been canceled (id.). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. A. INVENTION Appellants’ invention is directed to a mobile communication terminal having a camera that generates image data of a captured still image which is processed by a display data processor and provided to a thumbnail generator that generates a thumbnail picture which may be displayed to conveniently identify the still image (Abstract; Spec. 2:1-3:8). B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM Claim 1 is exemplary: 1. A device for displaying an image in a mobile communication terminal, comprising: a camera for capturing an object’s image and generating image data; a display data processor for processing the image data generated by the camera based on a display standard; an image codec for compressing the image data processed by the display data processor and generating image data of at least one still picture in a still-picture capture mode; a thumbnail generator for generating image data of at least one thumbnail picture of a set size from the image data processed by the display data processor in the still-picture capture mode, including a thumbnail resizer for cropping lines Appeal 2011-001808 Application 10/419,984 3 and pixels from the edges of the compressed image data and a sub-sampler for generating a thumbnail image according to a pull down scheme; a user data generator for generating user data according to a display mode; a display unit for displaying the image data on a first display area and displaying the user data on a second display area; and a controller for cutting off a path of the image data by controlling the display data processor in the still-picture capture mode, driving the image codec and the thumbnail generator such that the image data displayed on the first display area can be compressed, simultaneously generating image data of at least one still picture and image data of at least one thumbnail picture of a set size when a still-picture capture command is generated in the image capture mode, storing the image data compressed by the image codec as the still picture, and storing the image data generated by the thumbnail generator as the thumbnail picture; wherein when a first picture size of the image data generated in the camera is different from a first picture size capable of displaying on the display unit, reducing and displaying pixels of the image data to be displayed when the image data generated in the camera is larger in size than is capable of being displayed on the display unit, wherein the user data on the second display area includes at least one of a remaining amount of a battery power of the mobile communication terminal, reception sensitivity and time information. Appeal 2011-001808 Application 10/419,984 4 C. REJECTIONS The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Sawanobori US 5,936,668 Aug. 10, 1999 Anderson US 5,973,734 Oct. 26, 1999 Takeuchi US 2002/0067352 Al Jun. 06, 2002 Akiyama US 6,542,192 B2 Apr. 01, 2003 Torres US 6,738,075 B1 May 18, 2004 (filed Dec. 31, 1998) Li US 2005/0206784 Al Sep. 22, 2005 (filed Jul. 31, 2002) Niikawa US 7,124,326 Bl Oct. 17, 2006 (filed Nov. 09, 2000) Claims 1, 2, 5, 7-15, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Torres in view of Akiyama, Anderson, and Takeuchi. Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Torres in view of Akiyama, Anderson, Takeuchi, and Okayama. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Torres in view of Akiyama, Anderson, Takeuchi, and Li. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Torres in view of Akiyama, Anderson, Takeuchi, and Sawanobori. II. ISSUE The dispositive issue before us is whether the Examiner has erred in determining that the combination of Torres, Akiyama, Anderson, and Takeuchi teaches or would have suggested a mobile communication terminal Appeal 2011-001808 Application 10/419,984 5 including a thumbnail generator having “a sub-sampler for generating a thumbnail image according to a pull down scheme” and “wherein the user data on the second display area includes at least one of a remaining amount of a battery power of the mobile communication terminal, reception sensitivity and time information” (claim 1, emphasis added). III. FINDINGS OF FACT The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of the evidence. Torres 1. Torres discloses a digital video camera (DVC) 100 having an image processing Digital Signal Processor (DSP) 116 and a display screen 140 comprised of nine object cells 300; wherein, each object cell 300 includes an imager area 304 and an icon/information area 306 (Figs. 2A and 4A; col. 4, ll. 57-65; col. 5, ll. 25-35; and col. 7, ll. 22-47). For example, when the image is a still image, the image area 304 displays a thumbnail image of media objects which is a small low resolution version of the image (col. 7, ll. 47-50). Akiyama 2. Akiyama discloses a digital still camera having a full image processor 14 and a rough image processor 16 that uses sub-sampling processing of index image data from processor 14 to limit pixel data of an image input and, thereby, generate a rough image data clear enough to distinguish an object (col. 4, ll. 5-20; col. 6, ll. 5-12). The volume of rough image data (10Kbytes) is suppressed to be 1/10 of the volume of full image Appeal 2011-001808 Application 10/419,984 6 data for a present digital still camera (100 Kbytes) (col. 4, ll. 11-16; col. 6, 18-20). 3. The digital still camera also stores non-compressed index image data, such as thumbnail image for displaying a plurality of pictures simultaneously on a display device (col. 3, l. 65-col. 4, l. 7; col. 6, ll. 25-26). The index image data is generated by sub-sampling processing; wherein, pixel data of the original image data is removed to provide a data volume of the index image data to be 1/10 of the volume of the primary image data (col. 4, ll. 10-14; col. 6, ll. 27-28). Anderson 4. Anderson discloses a method of generating as thumbnail image using a central square portion of an image; wherein, the left and right edges of a landscape image or the top and bottom edges of a portrait image are cropped off (col. 12, ll. 1-14). Takeuchi 5. Takeuchi disclose a portable telephone having a display that displays the remaining amount of battery power and reception sensitivity in a second display area (i.e. edge of screen) (Fig. 2) and a timeout timer value to the remote controller 42 (¶ [0180]). IV. ANALYSIS Claims 1, 2, 5, 7-15, and 17 Appellants contend that Akiyama “fails to disclose that its sub- sampling processing generates a thumbnail image according to a pull down scheme;” rather, Akiyama “merely discloses a sub-sampling process that limits pixel data of an image input to generating a rough image data that can Appeal 2011-001808 Application 10/419,984 7 be promptly displayed” (App. Br. 18). Appellants assert that “that limiting the pixel data of an image input is not the same as generating a thumbnail image according to a pull down scheme” (id.). Appellants argue that “Takeuchi … completely fails to disclose the exemplary feature of a camera” and “Takeuchi does not disclose, teach, or suggest displaying an image or a thumbnail image generated by the camera on the first display area and the remaining amount of battery power, reception sensitivity and time information on the second display area” (App. Br. 20-21). The Appellants contend further that “there is no sufficient basis or motivation to combine the digital image device of Torres, which has no function as a mobile communications terminal, and the portable telephone of Takeuchi, which has no function as an image capturing/displaying device” nor “the portable telephone of Takeuchi, which has no function as a camera device, with Akiyama and Anderson, which have no function as a portable phone” (App. Br. 21). However, the “Examiner maintains that sub-sampling inherently requires some sort of pull down scheme as one of ordinary skill would recognize that subsampling is not randomly removing pixels, but instead a predetermined processing that removes selected pixels to reduce the size of an image” (Ans. 41-42). The Examiner notes that Appellants’ Specification “is silent [as] to any specific pull-down scheme operation that shows what pixels are to be removed to reduce an image and merely defines a pull down scheme in terms of a relationship of an input image size and an output image size” (Ans. 42). Thus, the broadest reasonable interpretation “of a pull down scheme is a preconceived operation that reduces a given input size to a desired output size” (id.). The Examiner finds that Akiyama discloses that Appeal 2011-001808 Application 10/419,984 8 its subsampling “does this as ‘rough image data is suppressed to be, for instance, about 10Kbytes’ which ‘is less than 1 /10 of the volume of full image data for a present digital still camera’” and that Akiyama discloses “images generated from sub-sampling [that] are thumbnail images” (id.). We give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). However, we will not read limitations from the Specification into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Claim 1 does not place any limitation on what “pull down scheme” means, includes, or represents. Although the Specification discloses that the mobile communication terminal uses a 5-2 pull down scheme (Spec. 17:25- 18:10), the Specification also denotes that a 5:2 sub-sampling is synonymous with a 5-2 pull down scheme (Spec. 30:14-16). Thus, we give “a sub- sampler for generating a thumbnail image according to a pull down scheme” its broadest reasonable interpretation as any sub-sampling that produces a thumbnail image, as consistent with the Specification and claim 1. Torres discloses a DVC having a processor 116 that generates thumbnail images and a display having multiple cells for displaying thumbnail images and other data (FF 1). We find that the processor comprises a thumbnail generator and the display comprises a plurality of display areas. That is, we find that Torres processor comprises “a thumbnail generator for generating image data of at least one thumbnail picture” (claim 1) and that Torres display comprises “user data on the second display area” (claim 1). In addition, Akiyama discloses a digital still camera having not only a rough image processor but also a full image processor that generates index Appeal 2011-001808 Application 10/419,984 9 image data; wherein, the non-compressed index image data are thumbnail images that are generated by sub-sampling processing (FF 2 and 3). We find that the image processor includes a thumbnail generator that uses sub-sampling for generating thumbnail images. That is, we find that Akiyama’s camera comprises “a sub-sampler for generating a thumbnail image according to a pull down scheme” (claim 1). Moreover, Anderson discloses a method for thumbnail generation (FF 4), and Takeuchi disclose a portable telephone having a display that displays the remaining amount of battery power and reception sensitivity (FF 5). We find that Takeuchi’s display at least displays the remaining amount of battery power of the mobile communication terminal. That is, we find that Takeuchi’s display includes “user data on the second display area includes at least one of a remaining amount of battery power of the mobile communication terminal, reception sensitivity and time information” (claim 1, emphasis added). In view of our claim construction above, we find that the combination of Torres, Akiyama, Anderson, and Takeuchi at least suggests providing “a sub-sampler for generating a thumbnail image according to a pull down scheme” and “user data on the second display area includes at least one of a remaining amount of a battery power of the mobile communication terminal, reception sensitivity and time information,” as required by claim 1. We also agree with the Examiner’s explicit motivation that combining the references would be obvious since all four references are of an “analogous art” of mobile communication terminals having image processing and multiple displays for displaying thumbnail images and other data (Ans. 8-9). The Supreme Court has stated that “[t]he combination of Appeal 2011-001808 Application 10/419,984 10 familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Thus, we find no error in the Examiner’s finding that the combination of Torres’ DVC (including a thumbnail generator and a plurality of display cells for displaying thumbnail images and other data) with the Akiyama’s processor that uses sub-sampling processing to generate thumbnail images, Andersons thumbnail generator, and Takeuchi’s mobile terminal that displays the battery life produces a mobile communications terminal having a thumbnail generator having sub-sampling process for generating thumbnails images and a display that displays the thumbnails and at least the status of the battery power which would be obvious (Ans. 8-9; FF 1-5). Accordingly, we find that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Torres in view of Akiyama, Anderson, and Takeuchi. Further, independent claims 7, 9, 11, 13, and 17 having similar claim language and claims 2, 5, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 15 (depending from claims 1, 7, 9, 11, and 13), which have not been argued separately, fall with claim 1. Claims 3, 4, and 6 We affirm supra the rejection of parent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over Torres in view of Akiyama, Anderson, and Takeuchi. Appellants present no separate argument for the patentability of dependent claims 3, 4, and 6. As noted supra, however, we see no deficiencies in the combined teachings of Torres, Akiyama, Anderson, and Takeuchi. We therefore affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3 over Torres in view of Akiyama, Appeal 2011-001808 Application 10/419,984 11 Anderson, Takeuchi, and Okayama; of claim 4 over Torres in view of Akiyama, Anderson, Takeuchi, and Li; and of claim 6 over Torres in view of Akiyama, Anderson, Takeuchi, and Sawanobori. V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-15 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED peb