Ex Parte Brosnan et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 16, 201511836478 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 16, 2015) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation