Ex Parte Popescu-Stanesti et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 26, 201311053215 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 26, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 11/053,215 02/08/2005 Vlad Mihail Popescu-Stanesti O2-0210 6727 74878 7590 04/26/2013 O2MICRO INC C/O MURABITO, HAO & BARNES LLP TWO NORTH MARKET STREET THIRD FLOOR SAN JOSE, CA 95113 EXAMINER PETERSON, CHRISTOPHER K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2661 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/26/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte VLAD MIHAIL POPESCU-STANESTI and JAMES LAM ____________________ Appeal 2012-002580 Application 11/053,2151 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before THU A. DANG, JAMES R. HUGHES, and GREGORY J. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 Application filed February 8, 2005 claiming benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/605,560 filed August 30, 2004. The real party in interest is O2 Micro, Inc. (App. Br. 1.) Appeal 2012-002580 Application 11/053,215 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1, 5-8, 11-16, and 19-22. Claims 2-4, 9, 10, 17, and 18 were canceled. (App. Br. 1.)2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appellants’ Invention The invention at issue on appeal concerns digital cameras including a photoflash controller and, in particular, a digital camera and a photoflash control method for receiving a signal, enabling a photoflash controller. (Spec., 1:9-10, 6:3-15, 11:7-15; Abstract.) Representative Claim Independent claim 1, reproduced below with disputed limitations italicized, further illustrates the invention: 1. A digital camera comprising: an ambient light sensor for generating data representative of an ambient light level proximate said digital camera, wherein said digital camera has a plurality of flash modes including a flash mode and a flash disable mode; a main controller coupled to said ambient light sensor; an energy storage element coupled to a photoflash lamp; an image sensor coupled to said main controller; and a photoflash controller coupled to said energy storage element and operable for receiving said data from said ambient 2 We refer to Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.”); Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed June 22, 2011; and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed November 2, 2011. We also refer to the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed September 2, 2011. Appeal 2012-002580 Application 11/053,215 3 light sensor and a host signal from said main controller that enables said photoflash controller to place said digital camera into said flash mode, wherein said photoflash controller is disabled when said digital camera is in said flash disable mode to reduce power consumption until said host signal is received and said digital camera is placed into said flash mode. Rejections on Appeal 1. The Examiner rejects 1, 5-8, 11-16, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over US Pat. App. Pub. No. 2002/0025157 A1, published Feb. 28, 2002 (“Kawakami”) and US Patent No. 6,346,937 B1, issued Feb. 12, 2002 (“Sasaki”). 2. The Examiner rejects 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kawakami, Sasaki, and US Patent No. 5,504,584, issued Apr. 2, 1996 (“Soeda”). ISSUE Based on our review of the administrative record, Appellants contentions, and the Examiner’s findings and conclusions, the pivotal issue before us follows: Does the Examiner err in concluding that the combination of Kawakami and Sasaki collectively would have taught or suggested: a photoflash controller coupled to said energy storage element and operable for receiving said data from said ambient light sensor and a host signal from said main controller that enables said photoflash controller to place said digital camera into said flash mode, wherein said photoflash controller is disabled when said digital camera is in said flash disable mode to reduce power consumption until said host signal is received and said digital camera is placed into said flash mode Appeal 2012-002580 Application 11/053,215 4 (claim 1) within the meaning of independent claim 1 and the commensurate limitations of claims 7 and 13? FINDINGS OF FACT We adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Answer and the Final Office Action mailed January 7, 2011 as our own. ANALYSIS Based on Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 6-10), we select independent claim 1 as representative of Appellants’ arguments and groupings with respect to claims 1, 5-8, 11-16, and 19-22. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). The § 103 Rejection of Claims 1, 5-8, 11-16, 21, and 22 Appellants contend that Kawakami and Sasaki do not teach or suggest the emphasized (supra) features of claim 1, in particular, a signal (host signal) from the main controller that enables the photoflash controller. (App. Br. 6-8; Reply Br. 2-4.) Specifically, Appellants contend that “Sasaki does not teach disabling the flash control circuit 214” and “only the built-in flash 5 is stopped” and “although Sasaki may be read as disabling the built- in flash 5, there is no express or implied teaching within Sasaki that the flash control circuit 214 is disabled.” (App. Br. 7.) The Examiner sets forth a detailed explanation of the obviousness rejection in the Examiner’s Answer with respect to each of the claims (Ans. 4-19) and, in particular, the rejection of claim 1 (Ans. 5-7, 16-18). Specifically, the Examiner provides a detailed explanation with respect to Appeal 2012-002580 Application 11/053,215 5 Sasaki’s control signal sent from the overall controller 211 to the flash control circuit 214 and a “no flash mode” in which the flash 5 is “inhibited.” (Ans. 6-7, 16-18 (citing Sasaki, col. 4, ll. 11-21; col. 6, ll. 43-53).) Based on these findings, the Examiner concludes that Sasaki (and Kawakami) would have taught the disputed feature – “a host signal from said main controller that enables said photoflash controller . . . wherein said photoflash controller is disabled when said digital camera is in said flash disable mode to reduce power consumption until said host signal is received and said digital camera is placed into said flash mode” (claim 1). (Ans. 6-7, 16-18.) We adopt these findings and this reasoning as our own. Upon consideration of the evidence on this record and each of Appellants contentions, we find that the preponderance of evidence on this record supports the Examiner’s finding that Sasaki describes disabling the flash control circuit and the Examiner’s ultimate conclusion that the combination of Kawakami and Sasaki would have taught or suggested the disputed features of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 for the reasons set forth in the Answer, which we incorporate herein by reference. (Ans. 5-7, 16-18.) We limit our additional analysis to the following points of emphasis. We initially note that the disputed limitation consists of statements of intended use or purpose of the recited photoflash controller. Specifically, statements of intend use of the controller, i.e., how the controller functions – “operable for receiving . . . a host signal from said main controller that enables said photoflash controller” and “wherein said photoflash controller is disabled when said digital camera is in said flash disable mode to reduce power consumption until said host signal is received” (claim 1) – in this Appeal 2012-002580 Application 11/053,215 6 instance, do not further limit the scope of the claim. See Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (a statement of intended use “usually will not limit the scope of the claim because such statements usually do no more than define a context in which the invention operates”). Therefore, we do not ascribe any patentable weight to these statements. The claim limitation merely requires a photoflash controller that is coupled to an energy storage element and is operable for (capable of) receiving said data from an ambient light sensor and a host signal from a main controller, i.e., is connected to the ambient light sensor and the main controller. Even if we, arguendo, ascribe some weight to the statements of intended use, contrary to Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 6-8; Reply Br. 2- 4), we find (as did the Examiner) that Sasaki describes disabling the flash control circuit. Specifically, Sasaki explains: A flash control circuit 214 controls light emission of the built-in flash 5. In accordance with a control signal fed from the overall controller 211, the flash control circuit 214 controls the built-in flash 5 in terms of whether to emit light or not, the amount of light emitted, the timing of light emission, and other factors. When the flash control circuit 214 receives a light emission stop signal during light emission, it immediately stops light emission of the built-in flash 5 forcibly. (Sasaki, col. 6, ll. 43-51.) Sasaki explicitly describes a control signal sent from the overall controller to the flash control circuit that controls the operation of the circuit. Further, Sasaki describes “a ‘no flash mode’ in which emission of flash light by the built-in flash 5 is inhibited.” (Sasaki, col. 4, ll. 16-18.) Based on these disclosures, we conclude that Sasaki would have at least suggested stopping/disabling the flash control circuit – especially in view of its teaching that the device reduces energy Appeal 2012-002580 Application 11/053,215 7 consumption – “ensures alleviated depletion of a built-in battery” (Sasaki, col. 1, l. 67). Thus, we find Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive of error in the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of representative independent claim 1, as well as independent claims 7 and 13 which include commensurate limitations and dependent 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 14- 16, 21, and 22 not separately argued with particularity (App. Br. 8). The § 103 Rejection of Claims 19 and 20 Appellants provide nominal separate arguments with respect to claims 19 and 20, essentially reiterating the arguments made with respect to claim 1, supra – that Sasaki does not teach disabling the flash control circuit and Soeda does not remedy the deficiencies of Kawakami and Sasaki (App. Br. 9-10). We disagree for the same reasons set forth with respect to claim 1. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 19 and 20. CONCLUSION OF LAW Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 5-8, 11-16, and 19-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 5-8, 11-16, and 19- 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 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 2012-002580 Application 11/053,215 8 AFFIRMED peb Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation