Ex Parte Cazier

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 25, 2016

12917222 (P.T.A.B. May. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/917,222 11/01/2010
22879 7590 05/27/2016
HP Inc.
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Robert P. Cazier
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.
82264454 1115
EXAMINER
OSINSKI, MICHAELS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2662
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/27/2016 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):
ipa.mail@hp.com
barbl@hp.com
yvonne.bailey@hp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT P. CAZIER
Appeal2014-008324
Application 12/917,222
Technology Center 2600
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1-3, 5-18, and 20-22. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a haptic feedback response provided to a
user when a captured image is determined to be acceptable. See Title and
Abstract of Appellant's Specification.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below.
Appeal2014-008324
Application 12/917,222
1. A method for providing feedback for an image
compnsmg:
capturing the image with an image capture component
having at least an automatic mode and a manual mode;
in the automatic mode of operation of an image capture
device to automatically capture an image, applying all of a
plurality of image detection algorithms on the image;
in all other modes of operation of the image capture
device, applying less than all of the plurality of image detection
algorithms on the image;
image determining whether the image is acceptable in
response to a device applying at least one of the plurality of
image detection algorithms on the image;
providing a first haptic feedback response to a user of the
device if the image is acceptable; and
providing a second haptic feedback response to the user
of the device if the image is unacceptable, wherein the second
haptic feedback response is different from the first haptic
feedback response.
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1-3, 5-8, and 22 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph as failing to comply with the written
description requirement. Final Act. 5---6. 1
The Examiner rejected claims 18, 20, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out the
claimed subject matter. Final Act. 6-7.
The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 5-9, 12-18, and 20-22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2009/0231457 Al,
1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief dated March 22,
2014, the Reply Brief dated July 14, 2014, the Final Action mailed October
28, 2013, and the Examiner's Answer mailed May 15, 2014.
2
Appeal2014-008324
Application 12/917,222
published Sept. 17, 2009) and Fredlund (US 2011/0216209 Al, published
Sept. 8, 2011 ). Final Act. 7-19.
The Examiner rejected claims 10---11under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Lee, Fredlund, and Applicant's Admitted Prior Art
(AAPA). Final Act. 19-20.
ISSUES
With respect to the Examiner's rejection of claims 18, 20, and 21
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph as being indefinite, Appellant does
not contest an error in the Examiner's rejection, stating the rejection can be
addressed after a Decision on Appeal. App. Br. 6. Thus, Appellant has not
identified an error in this rejection and we summarily sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claims 18, 20, and 21under35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph
Appellant's arguments on pages 5---6 of the Appeal Brief and pages 3-
5 of the Reply Brief, directed to the Examiner's rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph present us with the following issue:
a) Does Appellant's originally filed Specification demonstrate
Appellant possessed the claim 1 features of an automatic mode and
a manual mode, the automatic mode of operation of an image
capture device to automatically capture an image?
With respect to dependent claims 2-3, 5-8, and 22, Appellant's
arguments provide us with the same issue as independent claim 1. App. Br.
6.
3
Appeal2014-008324
Application 12/917,222
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claims 1-3 and 5-8
Appellant argues on pages 7-8 of the Appeal Brief and pages 5---6 of
the Reply Brief, that the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1 is in
error. These arguments present us with the following two issues:
b) Did the Examiner err in finding Lee teaches an image capture
component having at least an automatic mode and a manual mode,
in the automatic mode of operation of an image capture device
applying all of a plurality of image detection algorithms on the
image, and in all other modes of operation of the image capture
device, applying less than all of the plurality of image detection
algorithms on the image?
With respect to dependent claims 2, 3, and 5-8, Appellant's
arguments provide us with the same issue as independent claim 1. App. Br.
8.
Claim 22
Appellant argues on pages 8-9 of the Appeal Brief and page 7 of the
Reply Brief that the Examiner's rejection of dependent claim 22 is in error.
These arguments present us with the following issue:
c) Did the Examiner err in finding Lee teaches three modes as recited
in claim 22?
Claims 9-16
4
Appeal2014-008324
Application 12/917,222
Appellant argues on pages 9-10 of the Appeal Brief and pages 7-8 of
the Reply Briefthat the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 9 is in
error. These arguments present us with the following issue:
d) Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Lee and
Fredlund teaches a first haptic feedback response provided if an
image is determined to be acceptable, and a second haptic
feedback response provided if the image is determined to be
unacceptable, wherein at least one of the first haptic feedback
response and the second haptic feedback response is a sequence of
vibrations or motions and the second haptic feedback response is a
different sequence from the first haptic feedback response?
Appellant's arguments directed to dependent claims 10-16 present the
same issues as discussed with respect to claim 9. App. Br. 10, 12.
Claims 17, 18, and 20
Appellant argues on pages 10-11 of the Appeal Brief and page 8 of
the Reply Briefthat the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 17 is in
error. These arguments present us with the following issue:
e) Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Lee and
Fredlund teaches providing a video message or an audio message
to supplement at least one of the first haptic feedback response and
the second haptic feedback response, the video message or the
audio message specifying which of the image detection algorithms
a corresponding image passed or failed?
Appellant's arguments directed to dependent claims 18 and 20 present
the same issues as discussed with respect to claim 17. App. Br. 11.
5
Appeal2014-008324
Application 12/917,222
Claim 21
Appellant argues on pages 11-12 of the Appeal Brief and page 8 of
the Reply Briefthat the Examiner's rejection of dependent claim 21 is in
error. These arguments present us with the following issue:
t) Did the Examiner err in finding Lee teaches the video message or
the audio message further specifies which user or object within the
corresponding image failed?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant's arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner's rejections, and the Examiner's response to Appellant's
arguments. We disagree with Appellant's conclusion that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 1-3, 5-18, 20, and 21under35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
However, we concur with Appellant's conclusion that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), and claims 1-3, 5-8, and 22
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph
Regarding issue (a), Appellant argues claim 1 recites capturing the
image with an image capture component having at least an automatic mode
and a manual mode, the automatic mode of operation of an image capture
device to automatically capture an image. App. Br. 6. Appellant provides a
detailed explanation on pages 5---6 of the Appeal Brief and pages 3-5 of the
Reply Brief identifying where the Specification describes the claimed
invention. In particular, Appellant cites paragraphs 39, 56, and 58 of the
originally filed Specification in support. App. Br. 5---6; Reply Br. 3--4.
6
Appeal2014-008324
Application 12/917,222
These paragraphs provide for an image capture component that is a device
with an automatic mode. See Spec. i-fi-1 39, 58. Furthermore, the device "can
manually or automatically capture one or more images." See Spec. i156.
We have reviewed the cited portions of the originally filed
Specification, and concur with Appellant's argument that the Specification
demonstrates Appellant possessed the claimed capturing the image with an
image capture component having at least an automatic mode and a manual
mode, the automatic mode of operation of an image capture device
automatically capturing an image, as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, we do
not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims 2, 3,
5-8, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claims 1-3 and 5-8
Regarding issue (b ), the Examiner finds Lee teaches two different
modes of operation of an image capture device as required by claim 1. The
modes being: a mode of operation that photographs a human subject and a
background applying all available image detection algorithms including
facial analysis and focus tests; and a mode of operation that photographs a
scene without a human subject, applying less than all detection algorithms as
facial analysis tests are not performed. Final Act. 7-8; Ans. 4--5.
Appellant argues the Examiner erred because Lee does not teach
separate modes of operation of an image capture device as required by claim
1. App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 6. According to Appellant, Lee's acquiring
information about a person's emotional state is not an automatic mode in
which all detection algorithms are applied, and Lee's photographing a scene
7
Appeal2014-008324
Application 12/917,222
without a human subject does not teach a manual mode. Reply Br. 6. We
do not agree. Lee teaches facial analysis tests, such as smile and eye tests,
are performed only after facial information and feature points are extracted
from image data of a subject's face. See Lee i-fi-144--45. Given this context,
one of ordinary skill in the art would understand Lee's facial analysis tests
are not performed when there is no image data for a face. Ans. 5. Not
applying facial analysis tests for a scene without a human subject in Lee is
commensurate with the broadly claimed manual mode of "applying less than
all of the plurality of image detection algorithms on the image" recited in
claim 1. Moreover, applying all detection algorithms including facial
analysis and focus tests for a scene with a human subject in Lee is
commensurate with the broadly claimed automatic mode of "applying all of
a plurality of image detection algorithms on the image" recited in claim 1.
Appellant further contends the Examiner relies on "a hindsight
interpretation of the [Lee] reference to make it fit the rejection." Reply Br.
6. Appellant's support for this contention, however, relies upon Appellant's
previous argument that Lee does not teach the manual mode required by
claim 1. As discussed supra, we are not persuaded by Appellant's argument
that Lee does not teach a manual mode as recited in claim 1.
As Appellant's arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 1 and and dependent claims 2, 3, and 5-8, not separately
argued. App. Br. 8.
8
Appeal2014-008324
Application 12/917,222
Claim 22
Regarding issue ( c ), the Examiner finds the macro mode, sports mode,
and landscape mode recited in claim 22 are not different modes. Ans. 6.
Rather, the macro mode, sports mode, and landscape mode can be one mode
that reads on Lee's non-human subject capturing mode applying a focus
detection algorithm. Ans. 6-7 (citing Lee i-fi-141, 47); Final Act. 18-19.
Appellant argues claim 22 requires multiple modes of operation,
which Lee fails to disclose. App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 7. We agree with
Appellant. Claim 22 requires at least three different modes of operation: a
portrait mode applying less than all image detection algorithms, but
including a smile, blink, face, and/or focus detection algorithm; the macro
mode, sports mode, and landscape mode applying less than all image
detection algorithms, but including the focus, color, contrast, and/or
brightness detection algorithm; and the automatic mode recited in claim 1
(from which claim 22 depends) applying all image detection algorithms.
The Examiner has identified Lee teaches two different modes of operation,
but the Examiner has not shown Lee teaches three different modes of
operation as required by claim 22. Final Act. 7, 18-19. Accordingly, we do
not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 22.
Claim 9
Regarding issue ( d), Appellant argues Lee and Fredlund do not teach
different first and second haptic feedback responses for acceptable and
unacceptable images as required by claim 9. App. Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 7-8.
Specifically, Appellant argues Lee teaches LED feedback responses but no
9
Appeal2014-008324
Application 12/917,222
haptic feedback, and Fredlund teaches only a general haptic feedback
response. App. Br. 9-10.
We do not find Appellant's argument persuasive because it attacks
Lee and Fredlund individually where the rejection is based on a combination
of Lee and Fredlund. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). In
particular, the Examiner finds Lee provides different first and second LED
feedback responses informing a camera user of acceptable or unacceptable
images, and Fredlund teaches a camera with haptic feedback as tactile
vibrations. Final Act. 12-15 (citing Lee i-fi-152, 63-64; Fredlund i172). The
Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to incorporate Fredlund' s
haptic feedback in Lee's camera to inform the user of acceptable or
unacceptable images using tactile vibrations. Final Act. 15-16. We agree.
Appellant's arguments have not addressed these specific findings by the
Examiner. App. Br. 9-10.
Appellant further argues, with respect to issue ( d), Fredlund does not
teach a second haptic feedback response that is a different sequence from a
first haptic feedback response as claimed. App. Br. 10. According to
Appellant, although Fredlund teaches haptic feedback as tactile vibrations,
Fredlund does not disclose different sequences as required in the claim.
App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 8.
The Examiner finds paragraphs 76 and 78 of Fredlund teach different
negative and positive user feedback responses, and paragraph 72 of Fredlund
teaches tactile vibrations is a type of feedback, and concludes it would have
been obvious to provide negative and positive user feedback via different
sequences of tactile vibrations. Ans. 7, 9. We agree. Fredlund teaches and
suggests different feedback responses may be provided via tactile vibrations,
10
Appeal2014-008324
Application 12/917,222
and the skilled artisan would recognize tactile vibrations are a sequence of
vibrations. Therefore, Fredlund teaches and suggests different feedback
responses may be provided via different sequences of vibrations, as required
by claim 9.
As Appellant's arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner's rejection of independent claim 9, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 9 and its dependent claims 10-16, not separately argued.
App. Br. 10, 12.
Claim 17
Regarding issue ( e ), Appellant argues Lee's audio messages do not
supplement a haptic feedback response because Lee does not teach haptic
feedback, and instead teaches LED light feedback. App. Br. 10. The
Examiner finds Lee teaches audio messages supplementing feedback of
appropriate LEDs and Fredlund teaches haptic feedback, and concludes it
would have been obvious to provide Fredlund' s haptic feedback in Lee
supplemented by Lee's audio messages. Final Act. 1 7; Ans. 7, 9. We agree.
Appellant's argument fails to take into account the combined teachings of
Lee and Fredlund. The Examiner's rejection is based on modifying Lee and
Fredlund to include the haptic feedback of Fredlund's camera in the
feedback of Lee's camera. Ans. 7-9.
Appellant further argues Fredlund does not teach haptic feedback in
response to a passed/failed image. App. Br. 11. Appellant's arguments do
not address the Examiner's rejection, which is based on a combination of
Lee and Fredlund. Final Act. 17. Moreover, as discussed supra with respect
to claim 9, we are not persuaded the combination of Lee and Fredlund does
11
Appeal2014-008324
Application 12/917,222
not teach different haptic feedback responses informing a camera user of
acceptable and unacceptable images.
As Appellant's arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1 7, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 17 and its dependent claims 18 and 20, not separately
argued. App. Br. 11.
Claim 21
Appellant's arguments directed to issue (t) assert Fredlund does not
teach the claim 21 limitation directed to a video message or audio message
that further specifies which user or object within the corresponding image
failed. App. Br. 11. Appellant's arguments have not addressed Examiner's
rejection that relies on Lee to teach this feature. Final Act. 18 (citing Lee i-fi-1
63---64). Moreover, we agree with the Examiner's finding paragraphs 63 and
64 of Lee teach the features of claim 21.
Appellant further argues Fredlund does not teach haptic feedback in
response to a passed/failed image. App. Br. 12. As discussed supra with
respect to claim 1 7, from which claim 21 depends, we are not persuaded that
the combination of Lee and Fredlund does not teach this feature.
Accordingly, Appellant's arguments have not persuaded us of error in
the Examiner's rejection of claim 21. Thus, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 21.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 18, 20, and 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
12
Appeal2014-008324
Application 12/917,222
We atlirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3, 5-18, 20, and 21
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3, 5-8, and 22 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
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
13