Ex Parte Thomas

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 20, 2012

10889954 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 20, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte DAVID THOMAS
____________________

Appeal 2010-005364
Application 10/889,954
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, THU A. DANG,
and JAMES R. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-005364
Application 10/889,954

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 13-16, 18, and 19 (App. Br. 3). Claims 2-12 and 17 have been
canceled (id.). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

A. INVENTION
Appellant’s invention is directed to a method and apparatus by which
vertical misalignment of images taken with a hand-held camera device can
be automatically corrected prior to output; wherein, either a processor within
the camera performs a rotational transform of the image using the rotational
angle sensed by a sensor mounted within the camera or the processor
conducts an image processing analysis of the data content of the image
frames (Abstract; Spec. ¶¶ [0012], [0028], [0029], and [0039]).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A device comprising:

(a) a housing shaped and dimensioned to allow the device to be hand
held;

(b) a display secured to the housing for displaying moving pictures on
a frame-by-frame basis;

(c) a camera arranged in the housing so as to define an optical axis
extending away from the housing in a direction from which the display is
viewable, thereby to image an object positioned to view the display, the
camera including a detector comprising an array of light sensitive elements
for obtaining respective pixels of an image frame, said detector oversized
relative to a desired output frame whereby non-zero image rotation within a
Appeal 2010-005364
Application 10/889,954

3
predetermined non-zero acute angle does not cause areas in an image plane
that lie beyond edges of the active area of said sensor to be mapped onto an
output frame;

(d) a sensor operable to make measurements of a physical parameter
from which a rotational angle between an alignment axis of the hand-held
device and a reference alignment axis in real space can be determined; and

(e) a signal processing circuit receiving the image frames taken by the
camera and respective rotational angles determined from the sensor
measurements, the signal processing circuit performing a pixel by pixel
rotational transform of image frames into corresponding output frames
according to the respective rotational angles.

C. REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Parulski U.S. 5,900,909 May 4, 1999
Umeda U.S. 6,452,632 B1 Sep. 17, 2002
Tullis U.S. Pat. Pub. 2002/0171737 A1 Nov. 21, 2003
Matsumoto U.S. 6,943,839 B1 Sep.13, 2005

Claims 1, 13-151, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Parulski in view of Matsumoto and Umeda.
Claims 16 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Parulski in view of Umeda.

1 According to the record on Appeal, Appellant indicates that claims 13-15
are on appeal (App. Br. 3). Thus, we consider the omission of claims13-15
merely an oversight and will treat these claims as standing or falling with
their respective parent claims.
Appeal 2010-005364
Application 10/889,954

4

II. ISSUE
The dispositive issue before us is whether the Examiner has erred in
determining that the combination of Parulski, Matsumoto, and Umeda
teaches or would have suggested a “detector oversized relative to a desired
output frame” (claim 1, emphasis added).

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Parulski
1. Parulski discloses an electronic still camera having an
electronic image sensor and an orientation determination section for sensing
the orientation of the camera relative to a subject; wherein, the electronic
still camera can be positioned in a variety of orientations relative to a
subject, including both clockwise and counterclockwise vertical ‘portrait’
orientations and a horizontal ‘landscape’ orientation, without affecting the
orientation of the images output by the camera (Abstract; Fig. 9).
2. A memory read out controller 56 within a signal processor of
the camera receives an orientation signal supplied by an orientation
determination section 36 (including orientation sensors and a logic section)
to generate control signals for controlling the rate and order in which the
contents of the memory 52 are accessed and displayed (Figs. 2 and 8; col. 4,
ll. 27-44).
3. When the camera is held in a clockwise vertical or
counterclockwise vertical orientation, the memory controller 56 will re-
Appeal 2010-005364
Application 10/889,954

5
orientate the image by reading the memory 52 from the bottom left (memory
read map 70) or the top right (memory read map 72) (Fig. 9; col. 4, ll. 59-
64). When the camera is inverted horizontally (upside down), the memory
controller 56 reads out an inversion (74) of the memory map (68) to the
output frame (Fig. 9; col. 4, l. 64-col. 5, l. 4).
Umeda
4. Umeda discloses an image sensor 100 that can selectively
output pixels by sub-sampling at intervals of a predetermined number of
pixel or by reading out only a subset of an image (Figs. 22A-C, 25E and
25F; col. 16, ll. 1-14 and ll. 30-45). In particular, a subset of the video data
corresponding to a designated block is read out to the output frame (Figs.
25E and 25F, col. 16, ll. 35-45).

IV. ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 13-15, and 18
Appellant contends that Umeda “discloses using only a portion of the
sensor to develop the output frame”; “[h]owever, there is no teaching in
Umeda … that this use of only a portion of the sensor does not cause areas
to map outside the sensor area under rotation” (App. Br. 7). Appellant
argues further that Umeda “teach[es] a different technique and a different
motivation for his sub-sampling” (App. Br. 9). Appellant finally contends
that although Parulski discloses “‘not caus[ing] areas in an image plane that
lie beyond edges of the active area of said sensor to be mapped onto an
output frame’… only for the fixed angles of 90°, 0° and -90°,” “[t]here is no
teaching in Parulski … that this condition is met for the recited ‘non-zero
Appeal 2010-005364
Application 10/889,954

6
image rotation within a predetermined non-zero acute angle’” (App. Br. 10,
emphasis added).
However, the Examiner notes that “Parulski is relied on as teaching a
camera device which detects angles of rotation of the camera, and
transforms the captured images according to the detected rotation so that the
images appear in the proper orientation when viewed” (Ans. 9). The
Examiner notes further that Umeda “is relied upon as disclosing an image
sensor which is ‘oversized relative to a desired output frame’” because
“Umeda teaches two methods by which an output resolution may be changed
to a value smaller than the native resolution of the image sensor” (id.). The
Examiner notes that “the claim does not require that only a portion of the
sensor is used” (Ans. 10). The Examiner concludes that “[w]hile Umeda
alone does not teach this feature [(‘non-zero image rotation within a
predetermined non-zero acute angle’)], the combination of Parulski and
Umeda does [at least suggests this feature]” (id.).
Appellant’s argument that the “use of only a portion of the sensor [in
Umeda] does not cause areas to map outside the sensor area under rotation”
is not commensurate in scope with the specific language of claim 1 (App.
Br. 7). In particular, claim 1 does not recite such “use of only a portion of
the sensor … [to] cause areas to map outside the sensor area under rotation”
as Appellant argues (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). Claim 1 does not place any limitation on what “non-zero image
rotation” means, includes, or represents other than the claimed detector is
oversized relative to a desired output frame “whereby” the non-zero image
Appeal 2010-005364
Application 10/889,954

7
rotation does not cause areas in an image plane to be mapped onto an output
frame (claim 1). We find such “whereby” language to merely represent a
statement of intended purpose of the claimed detector, and thus, will not
limit the scope of the claim because it merely defines a context in which the
invention, and particularly the claimed detector, operates. Boehringer
Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345
(Fed. Cir. 2003). Thus, we give “detector oversized relative to a desired
output frame whereby non-zero image rotation within a predetermined non-
zero acute angle does not cause areas in an image plane that lie beyond
edges of the active area of said sensor to be mapped onto an output frame”
its broadest reasonable interpretation as a detector having a size larger than
the output frame; wherein, only the active area of the detector is mapped to
the output frame, as consistent with the Specification and claim 1.
Parulski discloses an electronic still camera having an electronic
image sensor and an orientation determination section; wherein, the camera
automatically corrects any misalignment of the image when the camera is
positioned in a variety of orientations relative to the subject (FF 1). In
particular, the memory read out controller controls the reorientation of the
image output based upon the orientation signal generated by the orientation
determination sensor when the camera is turned clockwise and counters
clockwise vertical or inverted (FF 2 and 3). In addition, the memory read
out controller controls the output when the camera is turned upside down by
reading out an inverted memory map (FF 3). We find that camera having a
sensor and an orientation determination section includes the feature of non-
zero rotation of an image for rotation of the camera in a variety of
orientations including clockwise vertical, counterclockwise vertical, and
Appeal 2010-005364
Application 10/889,954

8
inverted horizontal. That is, we find that Parulski’s camera comprises a
“detector [having] …non-zero image rotation within a predetermined non-
zero … angle” (claim 1).
In addition, Umeda discloses an image sensor that can selectively
output pixels by sub-sampling at intervals of a predetermined number of
pixel or reading out only a subset of an image within a designated block (FF
4). We find that the sensor includes an active area (designated block) that is
mapped to the output frame. Thus, we find that the sensor having a
designated block comprises a “detector oversized relative to the output
frame … [wherein, the detector] does not cause areas in an image plane that
lie beyond edges of [an] active area of said [detector] to be mapped onto an
output frame” (claim 1).
In view of our claim construction above, we find that the combination
of Parulski, Matsumoto, and Umeda at least suggests providing “said
detector oversized relative to a desired output frame whereby non-zero
image rotation within a predetermined non-zero acute angle does not cause
areas in an image plane that lie beyond edges of the active area of said
sensor to be mapped onto an output frame,” as specifically required by claim
1.
The Supreme Court has stated that “[t]he combination of 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 Parulski’s camera having an electronic image sensor and an orientation
determination section for sensing the orientation of the camera relative to a
Appeal 2010-005364
Application 10/889,954

9
subject that rotates the image output with respect to the sensed orientation of
the camera with the oversized sensor, as disclosed in Umeda, produces an
oversized detector that rotates an image and maps only the active area of the
detector to the output frame which would be obvious (Ans. 5; FF1-4).
Accordingly, we find that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Parulski in view of
Matsumoto and Umeda. Further, claims 13-15 and 18 (depending from
claim 1) having the same claim limitation, fall with claim 1.
Claims 16 and 19
Appellant argues that claim 16 is patentable over the cited prior art for
the same reasons asserted with respect to claim 1 (App. Br. 11-16).
As noted supra, however, we find that Parulski and Umeda at least
suggests all the features of claim 1, which are similar those of claim 16. We
therefore affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 16 and 19 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 over Parulski in view of Umeda.

V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 13-16, 18, and 19 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

tkl