Ex Parte SON

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 27, 2016

11828923 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111828,923 07/26/2007
127226 7590 04/29/2016
Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP
P.O. Box 747
Falls Church, VA 22040-0747
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Joo Hee SON
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.
0465-1804PUS 1 1190
EXAMINER
SIM, MATTHEW Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2621
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/29/2016 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):
mailroom@bskb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOO HEE SON
Appeal2014-008413
Application 11/828,923
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHN A. EV ANS, MELISSA A. RAAP ALA, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
EV ANS, Administrative Patent Judge
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review2 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final rejection of Claims 1-10 and 21-38, all of the pending
claims. App. Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 The Appeal Brief identifies LG Electronics Inc. as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 1.
2 We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellant
actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments which Appellant could
have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appeal2014-008413
Application 11/828,923
STATEMENT OF THE CASE3
The Invention
The claims relate to a "terminal and method of capturing an image
thereof, by which a user can accurately capture a specific image in the
course of viewing images." (See Abstract).
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary Claim 1, which is reproduced below with disputed limitations
emphasized and some paragraphing added:
1. A method of capturing an image in a terminal, the
method comprising:
receiving, via a wireless communication unit of the terminal, a
movmg image;
displaying, via a display unit of the terminal, the received
movmg image;
receiving a first input while the received moving image is
displayed;
displaying a prescribed number of still images of the moving
image that were already displayed prior to receiving the.first
input, in response to the first input, the prescribed number
being greater than one;
3 Rather than repeat the Examiner's positions and Appellant's arguments in
their entirety, we refer to the following documents for their respective
details: Appellant's Appeal Brief filed February 24, 2014 ("App. Br.");
Reply Brief filed July 29, 2014 ("Reply Br."); Examiner's Answer mailed
June 5, 2014 ("Ans."); and Final Office Action mailed August 23, 2013
("Final Act.").
2
Appeal2014-008413
Application 11/828,923
receiving a second input to select at least one of the prescribed
number of still images; and
capturing, via a controller of the terminal, the selected at least
one still image in response to the second input.
References and Re} ection
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art as follows:
Mills
Katagishi
Jang
us 5,513,306
US 7,362,952 B2
KR 10-2006-0055994
Apr. 30, 1996
Apr. 22, 2008
May 24, 2006
Claims 1-10 and 21-38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Jang in view of Mills in further view of Katagishi. Final Act.
3-11.
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues independent Claims 1, 21, and 37 as a group. App.
Br. 8. The dependent claims have not been argued separately (App. Br. 9)
and, therefore, stand or fall with their respective independent claims. 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012).
Appellant contends Jang fails to teach the timing of the displayed
images as claimed. Specifically, Appellant contends Jang's images
"previously stored in memory" are distinct from the claimed "already
displayed prior to receiving the first input" images. App. Br. 8. According to
Appellant, the claims require that when "the input" is received, previously
3
Appeal2014-008413
Application 11/828,923
displayed images are displayed, but, in contrast, Jang teaches that a currently
displayed image is displayed in response to "the input." Id.
The Examiner answers that to cure Jang, Mills teaches a sequential
stream of images is provided from which a changeable range of frames can
be displayed (including images displayed prior to receipt of "the input").
Ans. 3; see Final Act. 4.
Appellant fails to address the Examiner's synthesis of the teachings of
Jang and Mills, instead attacking the references individually. See App. Br.
8; Reply Br. 1-3. "[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking
references individually where ... the rejections are based on combinations
of references." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). In view
thereof, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs and adopt the findings of
'1 T"""'1 • me bXammer.
DECISION
The rejection of Claims 1-10 and 21-38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 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
4