Ex Parte Chaudhri et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 30, 2013

11811100 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2013)

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.
11/811,100 06/08/2007 Imran Chaudhri 4860.P5152 6124
45217 7590 09/30/2013
APPLE INC./BSTZ
BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP
1279 OAKMEAD PARKWAY
SUNNYVALE, CA 94085-4040
EXAMINER
PASIEWICZ, DANIEL M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2661
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/30/2013 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 IMRAN CHAUDHRI and KENNETH C. DYKE
____________________

Appeal 2012-010475
Application 11/811,1001
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before THU A. DANG, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
JEFFREY S. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 Application filed June 8, 2007. The real party in interest is Apple Inc.
Appeal 2012-010475
Application 11/811,100

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
final decision rejecting claims 1,4-7, 10-17, 19, 20, 22-25, 27-30, 33-35, 38-
41, and 43-46. Claims 2, 3, 8, 9, 18, 21, 26, 31, 32, 36, 37, and 42 were
canceled. (App. Br. 2.)2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellants’ Invention
The invention at issue on appeal concerns devices, systems, machine-
readable media, and methods for improving image capture by determining
an image type and adjusting camera parameters based on the image type.
(Spec. ¶¶ [0002], [0009]-[0015]; Abstract.)
Representative Claim
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, with disputed limitations
italicized, further illustrates the invention:
1. A machine-implemented method to improve image
capturing, comprising:
obtaining first light data using an ambient light sensor,
wherein the ambient light sensor is located outside an optical
path of a camera and the optical path provides an image to an
image sensor;
determining an image type based on at least the first light
data, wherein the image type is associated with a plurality of
camera parameters that include at least an exposure time, a
focal length and an orientation parameter from an orientation
determination device, wherein the image type includes an

2 We refer to Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.”); Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”)
filed February 21, 2012; and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed July 3, 2012.
We also refer to the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed May 3, 2012.
Appeal 2012-010475
Application 11/811,100

3

indoor image, an outdoor image, an incandescent light image, a
sunlight image, or a fluorescent light image, wherein the indoor
image corresponds to a first range of ambient light intensities,
and the outdoor image corresponds to a second range of
ambient light intensities; and
adjusting one or more camera parameters based on the
image type, wherein the one or more camera parameters which
is adjusted includes at least the focal length.
Rejections on Appeal
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 4-7, 10-13, 20, 22-25, 30, 33-
35, 38, 43, 44, and 46 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
U.S. Patent No. 7,456,868 B2, issued Nov. 25, 2008 (filed Feb. 1, 2002)
(“Calderwood”) and U.S. Patent No. 5,325,185, issued Jun. 28, 1994
(“Tsuchiva”).3
2. The Examiner rejects claims 14-17, 19, 27-29, 39-41, and 45
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Calderwood, Tsuchiva,
and U.S. Patent No. 7,432,961 B2, issued Oct. 7, 2008 (filed Dec. 19, 2003)
(“Takeshita”).

ISSUE
Based on our review of the administrative record, Appellants’
contentions, and the Examiner’s findings and conclusions, the pivotal issue
before us follows:

3 The Examiner mistakenly includes claims 27-29 in the first ground of
rejection (§ 103 over Calderwood and Tsuchiva), and in the second ground
of rejection (§ 103 over Calderwood, Tsuchiva, and Takeshita). We view
this to be harmless typographical error and omit claims 27-29 from the first
ground of rejection.
Appeal 2012-010475
Application 11/811,100

4

Does the Examiner err in concluding that the combination of
Calderwood and Tsuchiva would have taught or suggested: “determining an
image type . . . associated with a plurality of camera parameters that include
at least an exposure time, a focal length and an orientation parameter from
an orientation determination device,” and “adjusting one or more camera
parameters based on the image type, wherein the one or more camera
parameters which is adjusted includes at least the focal length” within the
meaning of as recited in Appellants’ claim 1?

FINDINGS OF FACT
We adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Answer and the Final Office
Action mailed September 21, 2011 as our own, except as to those findings
that we expressly overturn or set aside in the Analysis that follows.

ANALYSIS
Based on Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 9-15), we select
independent claim 1 as representative of Appellants’ arguments and
groupings with respect to claims 1,4-7, 10-17, 19, 20, 22-25, 27-30, 33-35,
38-41, and 43-46 (see App. Br. 9). 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2004).
The § 103 Rejection of Claim 1
Appellants contend, with respect to claim 1, that the Examiner’s
Official Notice (concerning the orientation parameter) is improper and that
Appellants traversed the Official Notice in their previous arguments. (App.
Br. 9-12; Reply Br. 3-5) and Calderwood fails to teach or suggest adjusting a
focal length camera parameter based on an image type (App. Br. 12-13;
Reply Br. 5-6).
Appeal 2012-010475
Application 11/811,100

5

The Examiner sets forth a detailed explanation of the obviousness
rejection in the Examiner’s Answer with respect to each of the claims (Ans.
5-21) and, in particular, the rejection of claim 1 (Ans. 5-7, 17-20).
Specifically, the Examiner provides a detailed explanation with respect to
the Examiner’s Official Notice concerning the orientation parameter and
Appellants’ failure to timely traverse the Official Notice (Ans. 6, 17-20
(citing Official Notice; U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
2004/0021780 A1 (“Kogan”), ¶¶ [0002], [0012]-[0013]; Abstract)). The
Examiner also provides a detailed explanation of Calderwood’s disclosure of
determining an image type and adjusting parameters based on the image type
and Calderwood’s disclosure of adjusting focus based light settings. (Ans.
5-7, 20 (citing Calderwood, col. 2, ll. 36-40, 55-67; col. 3, ll. 7-67; col. 4, ll.
1-3).)
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 findings that the combination of Calderwood
and Tsuchiva teaches or would have 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, 17-20.) Our additional analysis will be limited to the following
points of emphasis.
We disagree with Appellants’ position that merely mentioning a
limitation (“wherein the image type is associated with a plurality of camera
parameters that include . . . a focal length and an orientation parameter from
an orientation determination device”) for which the Examiner cited Official
Notice, somehow traverses that Official Notice. (App. Br. 9-12; Reply Br.
Appeal 2012-010475
Application 11/811,100

6

3-5.) Even if Appellants did previously attempt to traverse the Examiner’s
Official Notice, the Examiner again presents the Official Notice (Ans. 6) and
submits a detailed explanation supporting the Official Notice, including
citation to Kogan (see Kogan, ¶¶ [0002], [0012]-[0013]; Abstract)). Kogan
explicitly describes an image capture device determining and recording the
device’s orientation. (Kogan, ¶¶ [0002], [0012]-[0013]; Abstract.)
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that associating camera orientation
with an image type was known in the prior art. (Ans. 6, 17-20.)
With respect to Appellants’ second argument, that Calderwood fails to
teach or suggest adjusting a focal length parameter based on an image type,
we conclude that Calderwood teaches or would have suggested this feature.
Specifically, Calderwood describes adjusting focus (i.e., a focal length)
based on various criteria (col. 2, ll. 36-40, 55-67), as well as determining an
“image type” based on focal length (e.g., the control logic determines that
“the camera is focused at a great distance” (Calderwood, col. 3, ll. 12-14)
and “the user is taking high-speed action photographs at an outdoor event”
(Calderwood, col. 3, ll. 26-27)) (see col. 3, ll. 7-67). We further find that
Calderwood describes the control logic (“[t]he ISO control logic”) being
“responsive to at least one camera setting and at least one environmental
characteristic . . . . includ[ing] . . . focal distance or range” (col. 3, ll. 60-63).
(See Ans. col. 3, ll. 7-67) Thus we conclude, as did the Examiner, that
Calderwood would have at least suggested the disputed features. (See Ans.
5-7, 20 (citing Calderwood, col. 2, ll. 36-40, 55-67; col. 3, ll. 7-67; col. 4, ll.
1-3).)
We further conclude that it would have been well with the skill of one
skilled in the art to determine particular parameters, associate those
Appeal 2012-010475
Application 11/811,100

7

parameters with an type of image, and utilize those parameters to adjust
camera settings (such as focal length) as taught by Calderwood and Kogan,
as such techniques were known in the art at the time of Appellants’
invention (see Calderwood and Kogan, supra). See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (“[I]f a technique has been used to improve
one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it
would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is
obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill” (citations
omitted)). We are not persuaded that combining the respective familiar
elements of the cited references in the manner proffered by the Examiner
would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill
in the art” at the time of Appellants’ invention. Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v.
Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550
U.S. at 418).
Appellants’ arguments with respect to claim 7 simply reiterate the
arguments made with respect to claim 1 (supra). (App. Br. 12-14.)
Accordingly, Appellants do not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of independent claim 7 for the same reasons as claim 1
(supra).
Similarly, Appellants’ arguments with respect to claim 14 again
simply reiterate the arguments made with respect to claim 1 (supra). (App.
Br. 14-15.) Accordingly, Appellants do not persuade us of error in the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 14 for the same
reasons as claim 1 (supra).

Appeal 2012-010475
Application 11/811,100

8

Thus, Appellants do not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of representative independent claim 1, independent
claims 7 and 14, independent claims 20, 25, 27, 30, 35, 39, 43-46 not
separately argued with particularity (App. Br. 9-15), and dependent claims
4-6, 10-13, 15-17, 19, 22-24, 28, 29, 33, 34, 38, 40, and 41 not separately
argued with particularity ((App. Br. 9-15), which depend on and fall with
their respective base claims. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s
obviousness rejections of claims 1, 4-7, 10-17, 19, 20, 22-25, 27-30, 33-35,
38-41, and 43-46.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
1, 4-7, 10-17, 19, 20, 22-25, 27-30, 33-35, 38-41, and 43-46 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 4-7, 10-17, 19, 20,
22-25, 27-30, 33-35, 38-41, and 43-46.

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).

AFFIRMED
Vsh