Ex Parte Stavely et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 14, 2012

11046374 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte DONALD J. STAVELY and ANDREW C. GORIS
____________________

Appeal 2010-0072251
Application 11/046,374
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, DAVID M. KOHUT, and LARRY J. HUME,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The real party in interest is Hewlett Packard Development Company, LP.
(App. Br. 2.)

Appeal 2010-007225
Application 11/046,374

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-33. (App. Br. 2.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellants’ Invention
Appellants invented a method and system for achieving image
stabilization as a way to reduce image blur caused by a camera shake. In
particular, during the operation of the camera, the composition
responsiveness of the camera is increased to enable a user to compose
photographs, and the composition responsiveness is decreased in response to
detecting a camera shake. (¶¶ [0042]- [0046].)

Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 further illustrates the invention as follows:

1. A method of image stabilization, comprising
automatically adjusting a composition responsiveness of a
camera during operation of the camera, wherein compositional
responsiveness is rapidity with which the camera returns to a
nominal position, and wherein automatically adjusting the
composition responsiveness is increased so that a user is able to
compose photographs quickly and decreased so that the camera
is responsive to camera shake.

Appeal 2010-007225
Application 11/046,374

3
Prior Art Relied Upon
The Examiner relies on the following prior art as evidence of
unpatentability:
MacKay US 5,253,071 Oct. 12, 1993
Tintera US 5,606,392 Feb. 25, 1997
Morofuji US 6,233,009 B1 May 15, 2001
Onuki US 6,429,895 B1 Aug. 6, 2002
Wada US 2003/0067544 A1 Apr. 10, 2003
Ohkawara US 6,778,768 B2 Aug. 17, 2004
Sato US 2002/0052538 A1 Mar. 10, 2005
Kojima US 2005/0140793 A1 Jun. 30, 2005

Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejects the claims on appeal as follows:
1. Claims 1-13, 16-28, 31, and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Morofuji, Sato, and Kojima.
2. Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Morofuji, Sato, Kojima, and Tintera.
3. Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Morofuji, Sato, Kojima, Tintera and Onuki.
4. Claim 29 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Morofuji, Sato, Kojima, and Wada.
5. Claim 30 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Morofuji, Sato, Kojima, and Ohkawara.
6. Claim 32 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Morofuji, Sato, Kojima, and MacKay.

Appeal 2010-007225
Application 11/046,374

4
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim as they are presented in
the principal Brief, pages 6-11 and the Reply Brief, pages 3-7.
Dispositive Issue: Have Appellants shown the Examiner erred in
finding that the combination of Morofuji, Sato, and Kojima teaches or
suggests automatically adjusting the composition responsiveness of a
camera during operation, wherein the responsiveness is increased to enable
a user to compose photographs, and decreased to respond to camera shake,
as recited claim 1?
Appellants argue that while Kojima discusses calculating the
movement speed for a camera, and Sato discusses a detecting unit for
stopping the operation of the camera, they do not teach or suggest adjusting
the rapidity with which the camera returns to a nominal position for image
stabilization, as required by the claim. (App. Br. 6-8; Reply Br. 3-7.)
In response, the Examiner finds that Appellants have attacked the
references individually as opposed to the combination thereof. In particular,
the Examiner finds that Morofuji discloses image stabilization including
automatically adjusting the camera during operation. (Ans. 21.) Further, the
Examiner finds that Kojima discloses image stabilization including adjusting
the speed with which the image pickup has been returned to its initial
position. (Id.) Additionally, the Examiner finds that Sato discloses image
stabilization including returning the camera to a nominal position during
camera operation. (Id.) Consequently, the Examiner finds that the
Appeal 2010-007225
Application 11/046,374

5
combination of Morofuji, Sato, and Kojima teaches or suggests the disputed
limitations. (Id.)
On the record before us, we agree with the Examiner’s findings and
ultimate conclusion of obviousness. We note at the outset that, as set forth in
the claim, the recitation of adjusting the compositional responsiveness of the
camera requires adjusting the rapidity with which the camera returns to a
nominal position.
Morofuji discloses an image shake correcting system for correcting
the movement of an image due to camera vibration. (Abstract.) Further, Sato
discloses a camera shake correction drive unit having a mode for monitoring
a camera image (S403), another mode for detecting the camera shake
(S405), and a third mode for returning an image pickup device (S404) to its
initial position (S408). (Fig. 15, ¶ [0077].) Additionally, Kojima discloses
calculating the movement amount and speed of the compensation necessary
to correct a detected camera shake. (¶ [0043].) That is, Kojima discloses
calculating how much and how fast should a required compensation be in
order to correct a detected camera shake. We find that the proposed
combination teaches or at least suggests that after performing a computed
amount and speed of compensation in response to detecting a camera shake,
returning an image pickup of a camera to its initial stage to capture an
image. We therefore find that because the image pickup function returns to
its initial position as soon as the image compensation is completed, the
rapidity of the compensation is also indicative of the rapidity with which the
Appeal 2010-007225
Application 11/046,374

6
image pickup will return to its initial position to resume its imaging
functions.
In considering the general form of Appellants’ arguments in the
principal Brief, they appear to have attacked the individual teachings of
Morofuji, Sato, and Kojima separately, as opposed to the combined
disclosures proffered by the Examiner. We note that one cannot show
nonobviousness by attacking the references individually where the rejections
are based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091,
1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, the respective references relied on by the
Examiner must be read, not in isolation, but for what the combination
teaches or suggests when considered as a whole. We find nonetheless that
the cumulative weight and the totality of the evidence on this record favor
the Examiner’s position that the combined disclosures of Morofuji, Sato, and
Kojima teach or suggest the disputed limitations.
It follows that Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s
conclusion that the proffered combination renders claim 1 unpatentable.
Regarding the rejections of claims 2-33, Appellants reiterate the same
arguments raised above for patentability of claim 1. (App. Br. 8-11; Reply
Br. 4-5.) As discussed above, those arguments are not persuasive. Further,
Appellants argue that the additional references relied by the Examiner do not
cure the noted deficiencies. Because we find no such deficiencies in the
combination of Morofuji, Sato, and Kojima for the additional references to
remedy, Appellants have failed to show error in the Examiner’s rejections of
claims 2-33. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appeal 2010-007225
Application 11/046,374

7

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-33 as set forth above.
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

msc