Ex Parte Matthews

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 23, 2016

13252251 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/252,251 10/04/2011 Kim MATTHEWS
114592 7590 11/28/2016
Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc,
C/O Davidson Sheehan LLP
8834 North Capital of TX Hwy
Suite 100
Austin, TX 78759
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.
4100-806288-US 3068
EXAMINER
SHAH, UTPAL D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2665
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/28/2016 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):
docketing@ds-patent.com
kasey.larocca@ds-patent.com
ipsnarocp@nokia.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KIM MATTHEWS 1
Appeal2015-007416
Application 13/252,251
Technology Center 2600
Before LARRY J. HUME, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-9, 11, and 13-21. Claim 12 has been canceled. App. Br. A-3.
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but
would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the
limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Final Act. 25. We
have jurisdiction over the remaining pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 Appellant identifies Alcatel-Lucent USA, Inc. as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal2015-007416
Application 13/252,251
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant's claimed invention is directed to "the use of temporally
structured light during scene production such that foreground/background
separation/differentiation is enabled." Spec. i-f 3. According to the
Specification, by distinguishing certain portions of a captured image (e.g.,
foreground from background) based on the characteristics of the light
illuminating those portions, the transmission parameters of the different
portions could be altered (e.g., higher quality transmission for the
foreground image or electing not to transmit the background in an effort to
minimize transmission bandwidth requirements). Spec. i-f 14.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below with the disputed limitations emphasized in italics:
1. A temporal method of differentiating elements in a
scene compnsmg:
illuminating a first element of the scene with light having
a particular temporal characteristic;
illuminating a second element of the scene with light
having a different temporal characteristic;
collecting images of the scene wherein the collected
images include a first image portion produced by the first
element and a second image portion produced by the second
element;
differentiating the first image portion from the second
image portion based on the different temporal characteristics
used to illuminate the first element and the second element; and
transmitting only the first image portion to a remote
location.
2
Appeal2015-007416
Application 13/252,251
The Examiner ;s Rejections
1. Claims 1-5, 8, 11, and 13-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kakii et al. (US 2010/0118935 Al;
May 13, 2010) ("Kakii") and Warszauer et al. (US 2008/0203277 Al;
Aug. 28, 2008) ("Warszauer"). Final Act. 6-22.
2. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kakii and Warszauer. Final Act. 22-23.
3. Claims 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kakii, Warszauer, and Goodman (US 2010/0321467 Al;
Dec. 23, 2010). Final Act. 23-25.
Issues on Appeal
1. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Kakii and
Warszauer teaches or suggests "differentiating the first image portion from
the second image portion based on the different temporal characteristics
used to illuminate the first element and the second element," as recited in
claim 1?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Kakii and
Warszauer teaches or suggests "selectively transmitting a first portion of an
image ... and bypassing transmission of a second portion of the image ... ,"
wherein the first portion is formed by illuminating a first element with light
having a first temporal characteristic and the second portion is formed by
illuminating a second element with light having a second temporal
characteristic, as recited in claim 13?
3
Appeal2015-007416
Application 13/252,251
ANALYSIS 2
Warszauer is generally directed to "photographing objects as they
appear when illuminated by a controlled light source, while minimizing [the]
influence of ambient light on the resultant images." Warszauer i-f 40. In a
disclosed embodiment, W arszauer teaches using a time-modulated light
source and a camera comprising at least one light-sensor. Warszauer i-f 9.
The disclosed light sensor further comprises a capacitor that is charged
during a first period and discharged during a second period. Warszauer i-f 9.
During the first periods (i.e., when the capacitor of the light source is
charging), the light source is providing light, whereas during the second
periods (i.e., when the capacitor is discharging), the light source is not
providing light. Warszauer i-f 9. Warszauer further describes the exposure
time for capturing an image is divided into two phases---during the first
phase, exposure occurs when the light source is providing light, whereas
during the second phase the light source is off and only ambient light is
present. W arszauer i-fi-1 5 2, 5 7. According to Warszauer:
[C]ell capacitor charging due to ambient light during first phases
is largely canceled out during second phases, yet cell capacitor
charging during first phases due to own light is not canceled out
during second phases. Light detection circuitry thus detects an
image of a photographed scene as seen illuminated by own light,
and largely ignores light information derived from ambient light.
W arszauer i-f 5 8.
2 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed
February 11, 2015 ("App. Br."); the Reply Brief, filed August 4, 2015
("Reply Br."); the Examiner's Answer, mailed on June 4, 2015 ("Ans."); and
the Final Office Action ("Final Act."), mailed on November 18, 2014, from
which this Appeal is taken.
4
Appeal2015-007416
Application 13/252,251
Appellant argues Warszauer, as relied upon by the Examiner, fails to
teach illuminating a first element of a scene with light having a particular
temporal characteristic and illuminating a second element of the scene with
light having a different temporal characteristic. App. Br. 5-9. Rather than
illuminating different portions of a scene with different light sources,
Appellant contends "Warszauer describes a technique for photographing a
scene or object that is illuminated by both a controlled own-light source and
ambient light." App. Br. 6 (emphases omitted). Appellant asserts
W arszauer teaches the light captured by the camera is produced by both the
light source (i.e., own-light) and ambient light. App. Br. 7 (citing Warszauer
i-f 7). Further, Appellant argues Warszauer does not teach or suggest that any
portion of the captured image is produced solely by ambient light when the
object or scene is illuminated by the light source. App. Br. 7. Because
Warszauer teaches a system in which the entire captured scene or object is
illuminated by the combination of two different light sources---own-light
and ambient light-Appellant additionally asserts Warszauer differentiate
between different portions of the captured image illuminated by different
light sources (i.e., light having different temporal characteristics). App.
Br. 8; Reply Br. 3.
The Examiner explains Warszauer describes a technique for
photographing a scene illuminated by both a controlled own-light source and
ambient light. Ans. 24. The Examiner finds the mixture of the controlled
light source and ambient light "is implicitly varied from an area in the scene
to another area in the scene." Ans. 24 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner
further finds "Warszauer' s camera captures an image of [a] scene having
areas illuminated by the combination of a controlled own-light source and
5
Appeal2015-007416
Application 13/252,251
ambient light and other areas illuminated with the ambient light only."
Ans. 25. Further, the Examiner finds:
When the areas illuminated by ambient light only are entirely
eliminated from the resultant photographic image, only the areas
illuminated by the combination of the own-light and the ambient
light remain in the resultant photographic image. Without
specifying the differentiating process in more details, this is
meets the requirement of the differentiating process.
Ans. 29.
We find Appellant's arguments persuasive of Examiner error. In
particular, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not identified
sufficient evidence, or provided persuasive technical reasoning, that
Warszauer teaches differentiating a first image portion from a second image
portion based on the different temporal characteristics of the light used to
illuminate the different portions of the collected images of a scene, as recited
in independent claim 1. Rather, Warszauer teaches an exposure time having
two phases; but each phase illuminating the entire scene. Warszauer i-fil 52;
57. Based on the capture of the entire scene under two different lighting
conditions (controlled light and ambient light during the first phase and
ambient light only during the second phase), Warszauer is directed to
minimizing the effects of ambient light on the entire captured scene.
Warszauer ii 58. We agree with Appellant that such a teaching does not
suggest differentiating portions of the collected images of a scene based on
how the temporal characteristics of the light used to illuminate those
portions.
Accordingly, based on the record before us, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1. Additionally, we do not
6
Appeal2015-007416
Application 13/252,251
sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 2-9, 11, and 21, which depend
therefrom.
Similarly, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not
identified sufficient evidence, or provided persuasive technical reasoning,
that Warszauer teaches forming a first portion of an image by illuminating a
first element of the scene (i.e., at a first location) with light having a first
temporal characteristic and illuminating a second portion of an image by
illuminating a second element of the scene with light having a second
temporal characteristic to allow the selective transmission of the first portion
but not the second portion, as recited in independent claim 13, and as
commensurately recited in independent claim 17. As discussed supra,
W arszauer does not teach forming a first and second portion of an image by
illuminating different portions of the scene to be captured using a light
having a first temporal characteristic to form the claimed first portion (which
is selectively transmitted) and light having a second temporal characteristic
to form the claimed second portion (for which transmission is bypassed).
Rather, Warszauer teaches an exposure of capturing an entire image with
illumination from a controlled own-light source as well as ambient light
during a first phase of exposure, and capturing an entire image with
illumination only from ambient light during a second phase of exposure. See
W arszauer i-f 5 8.
Therefore, on the record before us, we do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of independent claims 13 and 17. Additionally, we do not sustain
the Examiner's rejection of claims 14--16 and 18-20, which depend
therefrom.
7
Appeal2015-007416
Application 13/252,251
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-9, 11,
and 13-21.
REVERSED
8