By-Her W. Richards

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 30, 2020

14693103 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2020)

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.
14/693,103 04/22/2015 By-Her W. Richards MM01193-US-NP 4858
73635 7590 01/30/2020
Loppnow & Chapa
[Motorola]
P.O. Box 7588
Libertyville, IL 60048
EXAMINER
CUTLER, ALBERT H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2696
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/30/2020 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.mobility@motorola.com
docketing@loppchap.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BY-HER W. RICHARDS
Appeal 2018-005803
Application 14/693,103
Technology Center 2600
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, NABEEL U. KHAN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–5, 11–14, and 20. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Motorola Mobility
LLC. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-005803
Application 14/693,103
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant describes the invention as:
A method and apparatus can determine lens shading
correction for a multiple camera device with various fields of
view. According to a possible embodiment, a flat-field image
can be captured using a first camera having a first lens for a
multiple camera device. A first lens shading correction ratio can
be ascertained for the first camera. A second lens shading
correction ratio can be determined for a second camera having a
second lens for the multiple camera device. The second camera
can have a different field of view from the first camera. The
second lens shading correction ratio can be based on the first lens
shading correction ratio and can be based on the flat-field image
acquired by the first camera.
Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method comprising:
capturing a flat-field image using a first camera having a
first lens for a multiple camera device;
ascertaining a first lens shading correction ratio for the
first camera; and
determining a second lens shading correction ratio for a
second camera having a second lens for the multiple camera
device, where the second camera has a different field of view
from the first camera, and where the second lens shading
correction ratio is based on the first lens shading correction ratio
and based on the flat-field image acquired by the first camera,
wherein the first camera has a first field of view, the
second camera has a second field of view, where one of the first
field of view and the second field of view is wider than the other
of the first field of view and the second field of view.
Appeal 2018-005803
Application 14/693,103
3
REFERENCE
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
Yamanaka US 2004/0041919 A1 March 4, 2004
Kim US 2011/0102548 A1 May 5, 2011
Chen US 2015/0030258 A1 January 29, 2015
Wang US 2015/0365576 A1 December 17, 2015

REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1–4 and 11–13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Wang and Yamanaka. Final Act. 3–10.
2. The Examiner rejects claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Wang, Yamanaka, and Kim. Final Act. 10–13.
3. The Examiner rejects claims 5 and 14 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Wang, Yamanaka, and Chen. Final Act.
13–14.
OPINION
Claim 1
The Examiner finds Wang teaches the limitations of claim 1 including
(1) “ascertaining a first lens shading correction ratio for the first camera,”
and (2) “determining a second lens shading correction ratio for a second
camera having a second lens for the multiple camera device, where the
second camera has a different field of view from the first camera, and where
the second lens shading correction ratio is based on the first lens shading
correction ratio and based on the flat-field image acquired by the first
camera.” Final Act. 4 (citing Wang ¶¶ 43–46 Figs. 1, 3A, 3B). The
Appeal 2018-005803
Application 14/693,103
4
Examiner finds that Wang does not “explicitly teach that the first camera has
a first field of view, the second camera has a second field of view, where one
of the first field of view and the second field of view is wider than the other
of the first field of view and the second field of view.” Final Act. 4–5. For
this reason, the Examiner relies on Yamanaka as teaching that one of the
first and second fields of view is wider than the other. Final Act. 5 (citing
Yamanaka ¶¶ 81, 95–97, Figs. 8A, 8B).
Appellant focuses its argument on whether a proper rationale has been
provided to combine Wang and Yamanaka.2 For example, Appellant argues
“Wang already provides shading correction[,] and there is no reason to look
to Yamanaka to enable something that is already provided.” Appeal Br. 7.
Similarly, Appellant argues “Yamanaka already provides shading
correction[,] and there is no reason to look to Wang for shading correction.”
Appeal Br. 7. According to Appellant, “[e]ven if Yamanaka provided better
lens shading correction than Wang, instead of combining the teachings, one
of ordinary skill in the art would discard the teachings of Wang and use the
teachings of Yamanaka for lens shading correction.” Appeal Br. 7–8.

2 Appellant also requests the Board to remand the case to the Examiner
because the Appellant was not given a fair opportunity to respond to the
Examiner’s rejection, which Appellant argues changed the reasoning to
combine Wang with Yamanaka. Appeal Br. 15–16. The Board only
considers matters affecting the merits of the invention, i.e., rejections of
claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.31(c). Matters not affecting the merits of the
invention, such as allegations of procedural errors by the Examiner (e.g.,
failure to designate a new ground of rejection as such), are to be raised by
petition to the Director or to the USPTO official to whom the Director has
delegated the authority to determine the petition. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.181–
183. We note, however, that Appellant has already filed a Petition to
withdraw Finality, but that the Petition was dismissed.
Appeal 2018-005803
Application 14/693,103
5
Finally, Appellant argues “the suggested combination of Yamanaka and
Wang would change the principle of operation of Wang.” Appeal Br. 8.
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments. To support a finding
of obviousness the Examiner must provide “articulated reasoning with some
rational underpinning” for combining known elements in the manner
required by the claim. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
(2007) (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). A reason to
combine may be found “explicitly or implicitly in market forces; design
incentives; the ‘interrelated teachings of multiple patents’; ‘any need or
problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and
addressed by the patent’; and the background knowledge, creativity, and
common sense of the person of ordinary skill.” ZUP, LLC v. Nash Mfg.,
Inc., 896 F.3d 1365, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Plantronics, Inc. v.
Aliph, Inc., 724 F.3d 1343, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2013)).
We find the Examiner has articulated a rational reason to combine the
two references. In particular, the Examiner finds both Wang and Yamanaka
are in the same field of endeavor and address the same problem of correcting
for shading, but do so in different ways. Final Act. 2–3 (citing Yamanaka
¶¶ 8, 96, 105). The Examiner finds Wang teaches correcting for shading by
ascertaining a first lens shading correction ratio for a first camera and
determining a second lens shading correction ratio for a second camera.
Ans. 13; see also Final Act. 4 (citing Wang ¶¶ 43–46 Figs. 1, 3A, 3B). The
Examiner acknowledges that Wang does not teach that the first camera has a
wider field of view than the second camera and therefore relies on
Yamanaka (Ans. 13–14) to teach shading correction by capturing two
images, a target image and a reference image, where the reference image is
Appeal 2018-005803
Application 14/693,103
6
captured with a wider field of view than the target image. Ans. 14 (citing
Yamanaka ¶¶ 81 96, 105, Figs. 8A, 8B); see also Final Act. 2, 4 (citing
Wang ¶¶ 21, 43–46, 57).
The Examiner determines one of ordinary skill in the art would have
combined the two references because (1) both references aim to correct for
shading, (2) Wang teaches that its shading correction is based on
approximation and therefore not all the shading is corrected for, and
(3) Yamanaka provides a way for removing shading that one of ordinary
skill in the art would use to try and improve Wang’s shading correction.
Ans. 14–15; see also Final Act. 2–3. We agree.
Appellant argues that Wang and Yamanaka each “already provides
shading correction” and therefore there would be no reason to look to the
other to provide shading correction. Appeal Br. 7. This argument is
unpersuasive.
Wang already teaches using images from two cameras to correct for
shading. Wang ¶¶ 41–46. Modifying Wang so that one of the cameras has a
wider field of reference, as taught by Yamanaka, would be a substitution of
one known method of correcting for shading with another known alternative
method of correcting for shading.
There is no requirement that either Wang or Yamanaka explicitly
express that a method different than the ones they disclose be tried as an
alternative. Nor is there a requirement that one alternative must necessarily
be better than the other. In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
(“[J]ust because better alternatives exist in the prior art does not mean that
an inferior combination is inapt for obviousness purposes”); see also In re
Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1200 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[O]ur case law does not
Appeal 2018-005803
Application 14/693,103
7
require that a particular combination must be the preferred, or the most
desirable, combination described in the prior art in order to provide
motivation for the current invention.”)
Appellant also argues that “[e]ven if Yamanaka provided better lens
shading correction than Wang, instead of combining the teachings, one of
ordinary skill in the art would discard the teachings of Wang and use the
teachings of Yamanaka for lens shading correction.” Appeal Br. 7–8.
However, Appellant provides no evidence that one of ordinary skill would
discard the teachings of Wang and use the teachings of Yamanaka, instead
of simply modifying Wang to use the teaching of Yamanaka. See In re
Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (attorney arguments or
conclusory statements are insufficient to rebut a prima facie case).
Appellant’s argument that the combination of Wang with Yamanaka
would change the principle of operation of Wang is also unpersuasive.
Appellant argues “Wang requires the use of the same images with the same
pixel coordinates. To the contrary, changing the focal length would result in
different images, which would change the principle of operation of Wang.”
Appeal Br. 12; see also Reply Br. 7–8.
We disagree that use of “the same image[]” is a principle of operation
of Wang. Rather, Wang teaches using two images, one being a diffused
image to correct for shading in another image, labeled the primary image,
where the diffused image is taken from a different camera lens than the
primary image. Wang ¶¶ 41–42. In the Examiner’s combination, Wang’s
diffused image would be replaced with Yamanaka’s image with a wider field
of view. Then a comparison of the two images would result in correcting for
shading in the primary image. Both Wang and Yamanaka compare a
Appeal 2018-005803
Application 14/693,103
8
primary image with a secondary image. In the case of Wang, the secondary
image is a diffused image, in the case of Yamanaka, the secondary image is
an image with a wider field of view. See Wang ¶¶ 41–46; Yamanaka ¶¶ 95–
97.
While it is true that the precise method of making the comparison
would have to be modified (i.e., Wang’s pixel by pixel comparison would
need to be modified now that the secondary image has a wider field of
view), such a modification would have been within the skill of the ordinary
artisan who would have been “able to fit the teachings of multiple patents
together like pieces of a puzzle.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 420. Making the
substitution of the Yamanaka’s method for the Wang’s method does not
change the principle of operation of Wang, but, rather, modifies Wang with
the teachings of Yamanaka.
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill would understand that rather than
modifying Wang with Yamanaka’s teachings, one could modify Yamanaka
with Wang’s teachings. See In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d at 1333 (“[W]here the
relevant factual inquiries underlying an obviousness determination are
otherwise clear, characterization by the examiner of prior art as ‘primary’
and ‘secondary’ is merely a matter of presentation with no legal
significance.”). Yamanaka discloses taking two images serially with one
camera where the second image has a wider field of view than the first. See
Yamanaka ¶¶ 95–97, Figs. 8A, 8B. One of ordinary skill would have been
able to modify Yamanaka to use two cameras instead of one to take the two
images (i.e., the first camera takes the first image (PA1) and the second
camera takes the second image (PB2)) in light of Wang’s teaching of
correcting shading using two cameras. Thus, Yamanaka would be modified
Appeal 2018-005803
Application 14/693,103
9
by Wang, without changing the principle of operation of Yamanaka. Either
way, the merits of the rejection remains.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1 and of independent claims 11 and 20, for which Appellant makes the
same arguments. See Appeal Br. 16–37. We also sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of the pending dependent claims, for which Appellant does not
make arguments for separate patentability. See Appeal Br. 38.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 11–13 103 Wang, Yamanaka 1–4, 11–13
20 103 Wang, Yamanaka,
Kim
20
5, 14 103 Wang, Yamanaka,
Chen
5, 14
Overall
Outcome
1–5, 11–14,
20

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED