Ex Parte Brosnan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 16, 2015

11836478 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 16, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MICHAEL JOHN BROSNAN,
ROBERT A. BLACK, and
ALEXANDER SCHNEIDER
____________

Appeal 2012-010463
Application 11/836,478
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
JOHNNY A. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judges.

KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2012-010463
Application 11/836,478

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1, 2, 5–7, 13, 14, 18, 19, and 21–26. Claims 3, 4, 8–12,
15–17, and 20 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.

Representative Claim
1. An apparatus to facilitate image stabilization, the
apparatus comprising:
an image sensor to acquire an image of a scene over an
exposure period;
a movement detector coupled to the image sensor, the
movement detector to compute a movement measurement of the
image sensor during the exposure period; and
a digital processor coupled to the movement detector, the
digital processor to provide feedback to a user during the
exposure period, wherein the feedback is based on the
movement measurement;
wherein the feedback comprises:
an initial image marker representative of at least a portion
of the scene at a beginning of the exposure period; and
a superimposed image marker representative of a
corresponding portion of the scene at a subsequent time during
the exposure period, wherein the superimposed image marker is
superimposed over the initial image marker according to the
movement measurement computed by the movement detector,
wherein the superimposed image marker comprises a
mathematically brightened representation of an underexposed
image of the scene.

Appeal 2012-010463
Application 11/836,478

3
Examiner’s Rejections1
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 14, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Iwaibana (US 4,862,277, Aug. 29,
1989), Sobol (US 2006/0170781 A1, Aug. 3, 2006), and Stavely (US
7,397,968 B2, July 8, 2008). Ans. 5–15.
The Examiner rejected claims 5–7, 13, and 21–26 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Iwaibana, Sobol, Stavely, and Hijishiri
(US 6,906,746 B2, June 14, 2005). Ans.16–20.

ANALYSIS
We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the
Examiner’s Answer (see Ans. 5–23). We highlight and address specific
findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
Appellants argue that the combination of Iwaibana, Sobol, and
Stavely does not disclose the claimed element in independent claim 1 to
“provide feedback to a user during the exposure period” (hereinafter
“disputed feature”). App. Br. 6. Appellants also argue that “Sobol does not
teach conveying motion/blur information to a user during the exposure
period.” App. Br. 7.
The Specification discloses:
Fig. 8 depicts a schematic flow chart diagram of one
embodiment of a method 170 for providing visual feedback to a
user. . . .
. . . .

1 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 2, 5–7, 13, 14, 18, 19, and
21–26. App. Br. 10–11.
Appeal 2012-010463
Application 11/836,478

4
Additionally, at block 176 the movement detector 118
determines if a movement measurement exceeds a threshold. In
one embodiment, the magnitude of the movement measurement
is compared to the threshold value. If the movement
measurement does exceed the threshold, then at block 178 the
camera system 100 may provide additional notification to the
user. After providing the additional notification to the user, or
if the movement measurement does not exceed the threshold,
then the method 170 returns to the operation 156 of Fig. 7
described above.
Spec. paras. 50–52 (emphasis ours).
Thus, according to Appellants’ Specification, when the movement
measurement exceeds a threshold, the user is notified. Although this
disclosure is not limiting of the claimed invention, it provides context for
which the terms “provide feedback to a user during the exposure period” are
interpreted.
Sobol discloses a shake meter (Figure 2):
An electronic image capture device including an image capture
array, an optional image stabilization gyro, a processor, and a
display is configured to detect the amount shaking of the device
either prior to, or during image capture. When the shaking of
the device exceeds a threshold required for the capture of
quality images, the user of the image capture device is notified
through the display that excessive shake has been detected and
may be advised on methods to reduce or eliminate the shake.
Sobol, Abstract (emphasis ours).
Thus, in Sobol’s shake meter, when the shaking of the device exceeds
a threshold during image capture, the user of the image capture device is
notified. Based on our review of Sobol and consistent with the Examiner’s
stated positions, we find the disputed feature encompasses Sobol’s shake
meter.
Appeal 2012-010463
Application 11/836,478

5
We sustain the rejections of claims 1, 2, 5–7, 13, 14, 18, 19, and 21–
26.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 5–7, 13, 14,
18, 19, and 21–26.
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