Ex Parte Shaw et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 30, 2018

13527796 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/527,796 06/20/2012
47795 7590 08/01/2018
TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C.
1616 S. VOSS RD., SUITE 750
HOUSTON, TX 77057-2631
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
David I. Shaw
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.
ITL.2761US (P43441) 1267
EXAMINER
JOISIL, BERTEAU
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2487
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/01/2018 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):
tphpto@tphm.com
Inteldocs _ docketing@cpaglobal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID I. SHAW, WILLIAM C. DELEEUW,
TONDRA J. SCHLIESKI, and LUCAS B. AINSWORTH
Appeal2018-002474
Application 13/527, 796
Technology Center 2400
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, IRVINE. BRANCH, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of pending claims 1, 5-11, 20, 22-24, and 26-32. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Appellants identify Intel Corp. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2018-002474
Application 13/527,796
Introduction
Appellants' invention "relates generally to imaging devices for
capturing three-dimensional (3D) images." Spec. ,r 1.
Claims 1 and 20 are illustrative of the claims on appeal:
1. An imaging device comprising:
a housing;
a lens pair mounted in said housing so as to maintain a
side-by-side horizontal orientation when the housing is rotated
about an imaging axis; and
a lens assembly rotatable relative to said housing, said
assembly is weighted to maintain said pair in the side-by-side
orientation.
20. A method comprising:
detecting an angle of tilt of an imaging device;
rotating a lens in said device based on the detected angle
of tilt; and
if the angle is vertical, capturing an upright image box.
App. Br. 10, 11 (Claims App'x).
Rejection and References
All pending claims stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as unpatentable over Namgoong (US 2012/0147146 Al; published June 14,
2012) and Yoshikawa (5,182,738; issued Jan. 26, 1993). Final Act. 5-13.
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Yoshikawa's disclosure of a
"balance weight located on the [lens] holder to be substantially axially
symmetrical with the objective lens" teaches claim 1 's requirement for "said
[lens] assembly is weighted to maintain the [lens] pair in a side-by-side
2
Appeal2018-002474
Application 13/527,796
orientation." Final Act. 6; Ans. 5 (both quoting Yoshikawa Abstract, 1 :7-
11; 2:5-12; 3:39-48) (finding the purpose ofYoshikawa's balance weight is
"to maintain horizontal positon by gravity effect"). Appellants argue the
Examiner errs because, contrary to the Examiner's finding, the purpose of
Yoshikawa's balance weight is not to maintain the lens in a particular
position. Appellants' argument is persuasive.
Yoshikawa discloses a lens holder arrangement with a lens and a
balance weight arranged on either side of a rotating shaft, with a principal
purpose of the balance weight being to cause the center of gravity of the lens
holder including all its components to be located at the axial center of the
support shaft. See Yoshikawa 1 :40-48; 2:34--43. Yoshikawa also discloses
its balance weight provides vibration damping functionality, which provides
benefits for its use in its preferred embodiments for electromagnetic servo
control systems such as for compact disk or optical video disk players. Id.
3 :30-4: 1. We agree with Appellants the Examiner errs because, given that
Yoshikawa uses its balance weight only (a) for causing an assembly's center
of gravity to be located at an axial shaft and (b) for damping vibrations, it is
not apparent Yoshikawa teaches or suggests using a balance weight ( c) for
the unrelated purpose of maintaining the orientation of a lens ( or a lens pair).
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1. We also,
accordingly, do not sustain the rejection of its dependent claims 5-11.
Claim 20
In rejecting claim 20, the Examiner finds "[t]ilt angles are produced
by rotating a plane of a certain angle" and that Namgoong teaches taking tilt
angle into account when rotating its camera elements. Final Act. 10 ( citing
Namgoong ,r 64) ( otherwise reasoning it "is a method drawn to the device of
3
Appeal2018-002474
Application 13/527,796
claim 1 applied to a single lens system" so that the findings in the rejection
of claim 1 also apply to claim 20). Appellants argue the Examiner errs
because the cited portion of N amgoong has nothing "whatsoever to do with
any of the three claim elements set forth in claim 20." App. Br. 9. This
argument is unpersuasive.
Similar to Appellants' disclosure, Namgoong addresses issues of
rotating a three dimensional camera that has two imaging elements normally
arranged in a side-by-side horizontal arrangement. See Namgoong ,r,r 2-12
and compare with Spec. ,r,r 2--4. Paragraph 64 ofNamgoong describes how
a disclosed embodiment simplifies the mechanical complexity of its camera
control elements by dividing the rotating angle into two 180 degree ranges,
thereby limiting the rotating angles of corresponding mechanical elements to
less than 180 degrees. Namgoong ,r 64. Appellants argue "this does not
teach any kind of angle of tilt detection or any device that could detect an
angle of til[t] or for driving the lens based on the detected angle" and,
therefore, "a prima facie rejection is not made out."
This argument is unpersuasive. Appellants read Namgoong too
narrowly and focus only on one isolated paragraph. In the context the
disclosures cited by the Examiner, ordinary skilled artisans would have
understood Namgoong paragraph 64 involves (and teaches) both (a) the
detection of the tilt angle of its imaging device and (b) the rotation of its
camera elements based on the tilt angle. See Figures 6-12C (cited variously
at Final Act 5 and Ans. 5---6) and related Specification discussion (i1i1 46---64).
Thus, Namgoong teaches "detecting an angle of tilt of an imaging device"
and "rotating a lens in said device based on the detected angle of tilt," as
recited in claim 20.
4
Appeal2018-002474
Application 13/527,796
We also note claim 20 recites "if the angle is vertical, capturing an
upright image box." This is a conditional limitation. During examination,
claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation. See In re Am.
Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under the
broadest scenario, the step dependent on the "if' conditional would not be
invoked, and so it is unnecessary to find this limitation in the prior art in
order to render the claim obvious. In other words, one would infringe claim
20 by performing all steps other than the step of "if the angle is vertical,
capturing an upright image box." "That which infringes if later anticipates if
earlier." Polaroid Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 789 F.2d 1556, 1573 (Fed.
Cir. 1986) (citing Peters v. Active Mfg. Co., 129 U.S. 530, 537 (1889)).
Regardless, we further note Namgoong also teaches capturing portrait
and landscape images as displayed in a rectangular display unit of a camera.
See, e.g., Namgoong Figs. 1A-2B, 4--5. Artisans of ordinary skill would
have understood cameras according to Namgoong display a rectangular
image of a picture when it is captured while the camera is vertical, which,
consistent with Appellants' Specification, see Spec ,r 18, 21, falls within the
scope of "capturing an upright image box," as recited.
Accordingly, we sustain the§ 103(a) rejection of claim 20.
Appellants further argue the Examiner errs in relying on N amgoong
paragraph 47 for the rejection of 22. App. Br. 9 (contending "nothing in
paragraph 47 supports any of the assertions in the final rejection"). This
argument is unpersuasive. As with claim 20, this is a conditional limitation
that need not be found in the prior art because the claim can be performed
when the condition does not occur. Also, similar to claim 20, regardless,
ordinarily skilled artisans would have understood the camera devices of
5
Appeal2018-002474
Application 13/527,796
Namgoong to display a captured horizontal rectangular image when taking a
picture with the camera in a horizontal orientation, which falls within the
scope of "capturing a horizontal image box," as recited. Accordingly, we
sustain the§ 103(a) rejection of claim 22.
Conclusion
We also, accordingly, sustain the rejections of claim 23, 24, and 26-
32, for which Appellants proffer no substantive separate arguments. See 37
C.F.R. 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
For the above reasons, we-
reverse the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1 and 5-11; and
affirm the§ 103(a) rejection of claims 20, 22-24, and 26-32.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
6