Ex Parte Jiao et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 26, 2016

12645916 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/645,916 12/23/2009
92556 7590
HONEYWELL/HUSCH
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O.Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
07/28/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Hongguang Jiao
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
H0024980 4874/110535 9170
EXAMINER
MOE, AUNG SOE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2664
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/28/2016 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
patentservices-us@honeywell.com
amy.hammer@huschblackwell.com
pto-chi@huschblackwell.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HONGGUANG JIAO,
ROBERTS. GAO,
and
KEVIN LIU
Appeal2014-009117
Application 12/645,916
Technology Center 2600
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY, III, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
MELISSA A. RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAAPALA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1-7, 9-11, and 13-17. 1 We have jurisdiction under 3 5
U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 Claims 8 and 12 have been canceled. App. Br. 13-14.
Appeal2014-009117
Application 12/645,916
INVENTION
Appellants' invention is directed to "systems and methods to reduce
image flicker in video surveillance cameras." Spec. if 1. Claim 1 is
exemplary of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A method comprising:
capturing a frame from a video data stream of a monitored
region at a frame capture rate, the monitored region illuminated
by a lighting system with a predetermined cycle variation;
determining a minimum common multiple of the frame
capture rate and the cycle variation;
determining a number of frames captured within the
determined minimum common multiple of the frame capture rate
and the cycle variation;
measuring an accumulation of a multiple of the
determined number of frames, wherein measuring the
accumulation of the multiple of the determined number of frames
substantially eliminates image flicker in the video data stream;
and
adjusting an exposure time of an automatic exposure
control based upon the multiple of the determined number of
frames.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1, 2, 9--11, and 13-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being obvious over the combination of Mori (US 2008/0101721 A 1; May
1, 2008) and Skow (US 2003/0184659 Al; Oct. 2, 2003). Final Act. 2---6.
Claims 3-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over the combination of Mori, Skow, and Kinoshita (US 2005/0093996 Al;
May 5, 2005). Final Act. 6-7.
2
Appeal2014-009117
Application 12/645,916
ISSUE
Appellants' contentions present us with the following issue: 2
A) Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Mori and Skow
teaches or suggests adjusting an exposure time of an automatic exposure
control based upon the multiple of the determined number of frames
("adjusting" limitation), as recited in independent claim 1?
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Mori teaches all of the limitations of claim 1,
except the specifics of automatic gain control and automatic exposure
control. Final Act. 3--4. The Examiner relies on Skow to teach the use of an
AEC (automatic exposure control)/AGC (automatic gain control) control
unit to adjust an automatic exposure control and integration point within 10
frame times. Final Act. 5 (citing Skow i-fi-123-30); see also Ans. 8-9. The
Examiner further finds Skow describes monitoring a video image signal at a
frame rate so that feedback signal 206 can be used to "adjust" an exposure
time based on the determined frame rate. Ans. 9 (citing Skow Fig. 2, ,-r 47).
Appellants contend that Skow does not teach the disputed limitation because
Skow does not disclose the use of multiple frames to adjust an automatic
exposure control, but merely discloses the use of an AEC algorithm that
adjusts a gain based upon some maximum integration time. App. Br. 7.
2 We do not reach the additional contentions that Appellants present because
the identified issue is dispositive of the appeal.
3
Appeal2014-009117
Application 12/645,916
The cited sections of Skow describe "an AEC/ AGC algorithm can
converge on the optimal exposure ... within 10 frame times." Skow i-f 23.
Skow further describes "automatic exposure control block 205 can perform a
continuous monitoring of the sensor signal 200 at a frame rate" and "can
also output a feedback signal 206 to a sensor." Skow i-f 47; see also Fig. 2.
Although Skow describes adjusting an exposure time of an automatic
exposure control, we agree with Appellants that these sections do not
describe adjusting the exposure time based upon the multiple of the
determined number of frames. Claim 1 requires more than the adjusting be
done based on a particular frame rate obtained from a feedback signal or
within a number of frames-the adjusting must be done based upon the
multiple, which obtains its antecedent basis from the previous limitation
(measuring an accumulation of a multiple of the determined number of
frames).
On this record, and for essentially the same reasons argued by
Appellants (App. Br. 7-8), we find the Examiner has not sufficiently
established the cited combination of references teaches or suggests
"adjusting an exposure time of an automatic exposure control based upon
the multiple of the determined number of frames," as expressly required by
the contested claim language. (Emphasis added).
For the reasons stated above, Appellants persuade us the Examiner
has not established the combination of Mori and Skow teaches or suggests
the "adjusting" limitation recited in claim 1. Independent claims 11 and 16
recite limitations commensurate in scope to the "adjusting" limitation, and
are rejected on the same basis. Accordingly, we reverse the 35 U.S.C.
4
Appeal2014-009117
Application 12/645,916
§ 103(a) rejection of independent claims 1, 11, 16, and their dependent
claims 2, 9, 10, 13-15, and 17.
Regarding the second-stated rejection of claims 3-7, the Examiner did
not rely on the additional reference of record (Kinoshita) to teach or suggest
the contested "adjusting" limitation. Therefore, the Examiner has not shown
that Kinoshita overcomes the aforementioned deficiency regarding the base
combination of Mori and Skow. Accordingly, we reverse the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of dependent claims 3-7.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-7, 9-11, and
13-17.
REVERSED
5