Ex Parte Wilson

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 29, 2014

11861970 (P.T.A.B. May. 29, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JEREMY C. WILSON
___________

Appeal 2012-000978
Application 11/861,970
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, ERIC B. CHEN, and
CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-20, all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

Appeal 2012-000978
Application 11/861,970

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention relates to an image processing system for
recording an adjustment of an image during image stabilization. The system
includes an image capturing device for capturing the image and generating
image data, an image adjusting device for adjusting the image by processing
the image data, and an image adjustment-recording device for recording the
adjustment of the image implemented by the image adjusting device and
generating an image attachment associated with the image, corresponding to
the adjustment. (Abstract.)
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. An image processing system, comprising:
an image capturing device, for capturing a stream of images and
generating image data for each image of the stream of captured
images;
an image adjusting device, that processes the image data
corresponding to each image of the captured images and that adjusts
at least some of the captured image of the stream based at least upon
movement of the image capturing device; and
an image adjustment-recording device, that records within a
respective attachment to each of the at least some images of the image
stream an indicator of a type and extent of the adjustment of the
captured image, the image adjustment-recording device transmits the
attachment within the stream along with and in addition to the
adjusted image wherein said attachment includes at least a number of
pixels that the captured image has been shifted to correct for
movement of the image capturing device along with a direction of
shift indicating at least one of up, down, right and left.

Claims 1-4, 10-12, 15, 18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Whitcombe (US 2009/0066799 A1, published
Appeal 2012-000978
Application 11/861,970

3
Mar. 12, 2009), Sato (US 6,650,365 B1, issued Nov. 18, 2003), and Hara
(US 7,057,645 B1, issued June 6, 2006).
Claims 5-9, 13, 14, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Whitcombe, Sato, Hara, and Hoshino (JP 2004-312281 A,
published Nov. 4, 2004).1

ANALYSIS
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments (App. Br. 6-15; see
also Reply Br. 2-13) that the combination of Whitcombe, Sato, and Hara
would not have rendered obvious independent claim 1.
The Examiner found the image sensor of Whitcombe corresponds to
the claimed “image capturing device.” (Ans. 5; Whitcombe, ¶ [0027].) The
Examiner also found the data interface and the processor of Whitcombe
collectively correspond to the claimed “image adjusting device.” (Ans. 5;
Whitcombe, ¶ [0032].) The Examiner acknowledged Whitcombe does not
disclose the limitation
an image adjustment-recording device, that records within a
respective attachment to each of the at least some images of the
image stream an indicator of a type and extent of the adjustment
of the captured image, the image adjustment-recording device
transmits the attachment within the stream along with and in
addition to the adjusted image
(Ans. 6) and thus, relied upon Sato for teaching an image correcting process
(Ans. 6; Sato, col. 3, ll. 56-59). The Examiner concluded that “it would
have been obvious . . . to have included an image adjustment-recording
device as taught by Sato in the image processing system of Whitcombe, for

1 Appellant does not present any arguments with respect to the rejection of
claims 5-9, 13, 14, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appeal 2012-000978
Application 11/861,970

4
. . . processes to be performed which insures reproduction of the image can
always be done with high quality.” (Ans. 7.) The Examiner further
acknowledged Whitcombe and Sato do not disclose the limitation “wherein
said attachment includes at least a number of pixels that the captured image
has been shifted to correct for movement of the image capturing device
along with a direction of shift indicating at least one of up, down, right and
left” (Ans. 7) and thus, relied upon Hara for teaching image data correction
(Ans. 8; Hara, col. 14, ll. 49-56). The Examiner concluded that
it would have been obvious . . . to have modified Whitcombe
in view of Sato to process the movement data stored in the
header of the image to be a number of pixels to shift the image
and an indication of a direction as taught by Hara for doing so
is simply applying a known technique (Hara) to a Known
Device (Whitcombe) ready for improvement to yield
predictable results.
(Ans. 8.) We agree with the Examiner.
Whitcombe relates to image stabilization on image sensors.
(¶ [0001].) Figure 2 of Whitcombe illustrates an image sensor apparatus 200
(¶ [0022]) that includes an “image sensor 205 for receiving light from a light
source and generating image data corresponding to an optical image formed
from the received light” (i.e., the claimed “image capturing device”)
(¶ [0027]), a processor 240, and a data interface 245, such that “embedded
image data 235 is transmitted to processor 240 where it is processed by an IS
algorithm and other image signal processing routines to generate a
movement-compensated digital image” (i.e., the claimed “image adjusting
device”) (¶ [0032]).
Sato relates to “an electronic still camera in which an image signal . . .
is subjected to an image correction process and recorded in a recording
Appeal 2012-000978
Application 11/861,970

5
medium.” (Col. 1, ll. 7-11.) Figure 2 of Sato illustrates the allocation of
data areas of an image file stored in a memory card M. (Col. 2, ll. 28-29.)
Sato explains the image file includes “an image recording area M1, in which
an image signal is recorded, and an information recording area M2, in which
information relating to the image recording area M1 is recorded.” (Col. 3,
ll. 56-59.) Sato further explains “when the image signal is read from the
memory card M . . . the image correction processes conform to the
indication characteristics of the display device can be performed, so that the
image . . . has a high quality.” (Col. 6, ll. 41-47.)
Hara relates to a digital camera using an image pickup device such
that “[a] position of a frame on the image pickup device from which electric
charges of the pixels are read out as the image data is corrected so as to
cancel the movement of the camera between the image pickup operations.”
(Abstract.) Figure 11A of Hara illustrates first and second readable image
frames corresponding to center points P1 and P2. (Col. 14, ll. 15-19.) Hara
explains that “[t]he image data correction in the X-direction and the Y-
direction can be executed by moving the image data read out from the
readable image frame R2 in the X-direction and the Y-direction.” (Col. 14,
ll. 49-52.)
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that
incorporating the image correcting process of Sato, which stores the image
signal along with information relating with the image in the memory card M,
with the image sensor apparatus of Whitcombe, would improve Whitcombe
by providing the advantage of processing the image using the stored image
information to improve image quality. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that modifying
Appeal 2012-000978
Application 11/861,970

6
Whitcombe to incorporate the image correcting process of Sato would have
been obvious. (Ans. 7.)
Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized that incorporating the image data correction of Hara, which
corrects image data in the X-direction and the Y-direction, with the image
sensor apparatus of Whitcombe as modified by Sato, would provide the
advantage of reducing the effects of camera movement. See KSR, 550 U.S.
at 417. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that modifying Whitcombe and
Sato to incorporate the image data correction of Hara would have been
obvious. (Ans. 8.)
First, Appellant argues that “Whitcombe is directed to an entirely
different subject matter than that of the claimed invention” and “since
Whitcombe merely embeds sensor data into unmodified image data,
Whitcombe cannot provide the same functionality as that of the claimed
invention.” (App. Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 2-3.) Similarly, Appellant
argues that “Whitcombe embeds the sensor data into the unmodified image
data for a different reason.” (App. Br. 7.) However, the Examiner cited
Whitcombe for teaching the image sensor 205 (i.e., the claimed “image
capturing device”), the processor 240, and the data interface 245 (i.e., the
claimed “image adjusting device”), rather than the method of embedding
image data. (Ans. 5.)
Second, Appellant argues “Whitcombe teaches away from the claimed
invention” because “Whitcombe teaches of the embedding of sensor data
rather than adjustment data into the video images” and “the sensor data is
embedded into the captured images rather than the adjusted images.” (App.
Br. 8.) Similarly, Appellant argues that “[e]ven if Whitcombe combined
Appeal 2012-000978
Application 11/861,970

7
with Sato and Hara et al. did include all of the limitations of the claimed
invention . . . the result would be that Whitcombe would no longer
synchronize sensor data with raw pixel data” which “would require a
fundamental change to the principle under which Whitcombe operates.”
(Reply Br. 3.) However, other than making conclusory statements,
Appellant has not provided any persuasive arguments or evidence to support
the argument that Whitcombe disparages the claimed invention or that
combining Whitcombe, Sato, and Hara would fundamentally change the
operation of Whitcombe. Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of
factually supported objective evidence. See, e.g., In re Huang, 100 F.3d
135, 139-140 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
Third, Appellant argues that “Sato is merely directed to color
correction of images and then only to static situations involving the use of
different display devices” and “[s]ince Sato is explicitly directed to an
electronic still camera, Sato would not have any reason to record movement
of the camera.” (App. Br. 7; see also Reply Br. 4.) Similarly, Appellant
argues that “Sato also teaches away from the claimed invention” because
“Sato teaches that the Sato image correction data should be used to
accommodate a number of different displays” and “Sato is explicitly
directed to single images.” (App. Br. 9.) However, the Examiner cited to
Whitcombe for teaching the limitation “an image capturing device, for
capturing a stream of images,” rather than Sato. (Ans. 5.) Furthermore,
because Whitcombe discusses the processor 240 “generate[s] a movement-
compensated digital image” (¶ [0032]), the processor 240 of Whitcombe at a
minimum suggests processing a video on an image-by-image basis.
Appeal 2012-000978
Application 11/861,970

8
Fourth, Appellant argues that “Sato merely refers to a memory
card M, having an image recording area M1 and an information recording
area M2 that may contain image correction information” and “an attachment
requires something more than simple presence within the same memory
card M.” (App. Br. 10; see also Reply Br. 4.) However, the claimed
“attachment” is broad enough to encompass the memory card M of Sato
with the image recording area M1 and the information recording area M2.
Appellant has not pointed to any special definition of “attachment” in the
Specification that would require a different interpretation.
Fifth, Appellant argues that “Hara et al. is also directed to stationary
images” and thus, “teaches away from the use of attachments that include
‘an indicator of a type and extend of the adjustment of the captured
image’. . . in the context of a data stream.” (App. Br. 9; see also App.
Br. 11.) However, the Examiner cited Whitcombe for teaching the
limitation “an image capturing device, for capturing a stream of images,”
rather than Hara. (Ans. 5.) Again, because Whitcombe discusses the
processor 240 “generate[s] a movement-compensated digital image”
(¶ [0032]), the processor 240 of Whitcombe at a minimum suggests
processing a video on an image-by-image basis.
Sixth, Appellant argues that “the pixel data of Hara et al. is used to
collect electric charge in the generation of a single image” which “is
different than detecting and saving changes in pixel location among images.”
(App. Br. 9.) Contrary to Appellant’s arguments, Hara explains that image
correction is based on obtaining electric charges of pixels as image data,
followed by correction in the X-direction and the Y-direction. (Abstract;
col. 14, ll. 49-52.)
Appeal 2012-000978
Application 11/861,970

9
Last, Appellant argues that “there is no teaching or suggestion . . . in
Whitcombe, Sato and Hara et al. of any attachment to a stream of video
images” because “Whitcombe includes a stream of video images and motion
data, but the motion data is incorporated into the blanking portions of the
individual frames of the stream” and “Sato and Hara et al. do not have a
stream of video images.” (App. Br. 15.) However, the Examiner cited to
Whitcombe for teaching the limitation “an image capturing device, for
capturing a stream of images,” and not Sato or Hara. (Ans. 5.) Again,
because Whitcombe discusses the processor 240 “generate[s] a movement-
compensated digital image” (¶ [0032]), the processor 240 of Whitcombe at a
minimum suggests processing a video on an image-by-image basis, as
discussed above.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 and
independent claims 15 and 20, which recite limitations similar to those
discussed with respect to independent claim 1, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appellant has not presented any substantive arguments with respect to
claims 2-4, 10-12, and 18, which depend from claims 1 and 15. Therefore,
we sustain the rejection of claims 2-4, 10-12, and 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a), for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent
claim 1, and pro forma sustain the rejection of claims 5-9, 13, 14, 16, and 17
(see FN 1).

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-20 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).
Appeal 2012-000978
Application 11/861,970

10

AFFIRMED

mls