Ex Parte Nguyen

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 3, 2016

12634078 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 3, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/634,078 12/09/2009 104840 7590 Imagination Technologies 3201 Scott Blvd. Santa Clara, CA 95054 11/07/2016 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Hugh Phu Nguyen 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. 070852.000172 6906 EXAMINER KHAN, USMAN A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2662 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/07/2016 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): patlaw@vorys.com vmdeluca@vorys.com mmseasay@vorys.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HUGH PHU NGUYEN Appeal2015-002593 Application 12/634,078 Technology Center 2600 Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner'sFinalRejectionofclaims 1-5, 8-12, 15, 17-19, and21, which are all pending claims. See Appeal Br. 4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal2015-002593 Application 12/634,078 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellant's disclosure relates to "processing sensor data in an image processor that implements at least one image enhancement process" and includes "performing a skin tone detection operation to identify skin tone areas in the sensor data." Abstract. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference (with emphasis added): 1. A method for processing sensor data in an image processor that implements at least one image enhancement process, the method comprising: receiving sensor data from an image sensor; performing a skin tone detection operation to identify skin tone areas in the sensor data in pre-capture processing; selectively modifying at least one image enhancement process for the identified skin tone areas prior to image capture; apply'ing the at least one modified image enhancement process to the identified skin tone areas in the sensor data to generate modified sensor data; feeding the modified sensor data back to the image sensor, thereby enabling the image sensor to capture an image using the modified sensor data; wherein each step is performed in the image processor; dividing the sensor data into blocks of pixels and calculating a percentage of the skin tone area within each block of pixels; and determining a weighting scheme, wherein the weighting scheme assigns weights to the at least one image enhancement process based on the percentage of the skin tone area within each block of pixels, and wherein the at least one image enhancement process is modified based on the weights assigned. 2 Appeal2015-002593 Application 12/634,078 The Examiner's Rejections1 Claims 1-3, 8-10, 15, 17, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sugimoto (US 2010/0026836 Al; Feb. 4, 2010), Pan (US 2007/0172119 Al; July 26, 2007), and Watanabe (US 6,961,462 B2; Nov. 1, 2005). Advisory Act. 2, Final Act. 3. Claims 4, 11, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sugimoto, Pan, Watanabe, and Jiang (US 2010/0158363 Al; June 24, 2010). Advisory Act. 2, Final Act. 7. Claims 5, 12, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sugimoto, Pan, Watanabe, and Jiang. Advisory Act. 2, Final Act. 9. ANALYSIS Appellant argues the Examiner erred, because Sugimoto "fails to disclose that an image processor applies the modified image enhancement process( es) ... to generate modified sensor data and feeding that modified sensor data back to the image sensor." App. Br. 11. Regarding the image adjustments described in Sugimoto, Appellant contends "Sugimoto does not describe that these adjustments are performed on the sensor data in the image processor to generate modified sensor data and feeding that modified sensor data back to the image sensor." Id. 1 An after-final amendment filed on June 17, 2014 was entered prior to this Appeal. See Advisory Action mailed June 25, 2014. The amendment canceled claims 6, 7, 13, 14, and 20, and added the subject matter of the canceled claims to independent claims 1, 8, and 15. See App. Br. 4. 3 Appeal2015-002593 Application 12/634,078 We agree with Appellant. The Examiner finds "that Sugimoto teaches at least in paragraph 0011 that face region, brightness, and color information is detected [and] then the information is [fed] back to the control device and image sensor for controlling exposure based on the brightness of an area of the detected face .... " Ans. 2; see also Final Act. 3. The cited portion of Sugimoto describes "an exposure control device which controls exposure based on the brightness of an area of the detected face" and "a face tonal correcting device which performs tonal correction based on the brightness of the area of the detected face" (Sugimoto i-f 11 ); however, the Examiner does not identify, nor do we find, any portion of Sugimoto in which such exposure and tonal controls are applied "to generate modified sensor data," followed by "feeding the modified sensor data back to the image sensor," as claimed. We are persuaded Sugimoto does not teach or suggest the disputed limitations of claim 1, and the Examiner does not rely on the other cited references for such teachings. See Advisory Act. 2 and Final Act. 3. Accordingly, we find the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1, and independent claims 9 and 15 which recite similar limitations. Thus, we are constrained by this record to reverse the rejection of the independent claims and the claims that depend therefrom. DECISION TheExaminer'srejectionofclaims 1-5, 8-12, 15, 17-19, and21 are reversed. REVERSED 4