Ex Parte Demeo et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 5, 2009

10975806 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 5, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte DANA C. DEMEO, THOMAS D. BIANCULLI, ALAN J.
EPSHTEYN, and DAVID T. LUNDQUIST
____________________

Appeal 2009-007180
Application 10/975,806
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Decided: October 6, 2009
____________________

Before JAY P. LUCAS, THU A. DANG, and CAROLYN D. THOMAS,
Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

I. STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-21 under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)
(2002).
We affirm.
Appeal 2009-007180
Application 10/975,806

A. INVENTION
According to Appellants, “The present invention relates to a device
and a method for acquiring data using a camera port of a processor” (Spec.
2, ¶ [0004]).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary and reproduced below:

1. A device, comprising:

a processing unit;

a memory arrangement storing a set of instructions; and

a non-USB camera port configured to receive first data in
a first format from a camera-type arrangement, the first format
including pixel information and a synchronization signal, the
camera port including pins and a master pixel clock;

wherein the camera port receives, via the pins, second
data and stores the second data in the memory arrangement, the
second data being received in a second format from a non-
camera type data acquisition device, the processing unit
converting the second data into further second data stored in the
first format using the set of the instructions.

C. REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Michelson US 5,628,028 May 6, 1997
Keery US 6,008,857 Dec. 28, 1999
Funamoto US 2003/0047613 Mar. 13, 2003
Speasl US 2005/0129385 Jun. 16, 2005
Bellantoni US 2005/0143026 Jun. 30, 2005
2
Appeal 2009-007180
Application 10/975,806

Claims 1, 4-6, 11, 12, 14-16, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(e) as being anticipated by Speasl.
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Speasl in view of Michelson.
Claims 3 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Speasl in view of Bellantoni.
Claims 7 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Speasl.
Claims 8 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Speasl in view of Funamoto.
Claims 9 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Speasl and Funamoto in view of Keery.

II. ISSUE
Have Appellants shown the Examiner erred in finding that Speasl
discloses “converting the second data into further second data stored in the
first format” wherein “the second data being received in a second format
from a non-camera type data acquisition device” (claim 1)?

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.

3
Appeal 2009-007180
Application 10/975,806

Speasl
1) Speasl discloses a portable memory device that displays images
and transforms image file formats received from a connected host device via
a port serving a host interface (Abstract; p. 3,¶ [0022]; p. 5, ¶ [0039]).
2) Video or images can be transferred from the connected host
device, such as a digital camera, digital camcorder, PDA, and PC, to the
portable memory device for storage and standalone viewing (p. 3, ¶ [0019];
p. 4, ¶ [0022]).
3) The portable memory device can convert between image file
formats, such as JPEG, GIF, TIFF, PICT, MPEG, XIF and BMP, to satisfy a
native format, user preferences, or the requirements of different host devices
(p. 3, ¶ [0027]; p. 5, ¶ [0044]; Abstract).

IV. PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Claim Interpretation
The claims measure the invention. See SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec.
Corp., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc). “[T]he PTO gives
claims their ‘broadest reasonable interpretation.”’ In re Bigio, 381 F.3d
1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed.
Cir. 2000)). “Moreover, limitations are not to be read into the claims from
the specification.” In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993)
(citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
35 U.S.C. § 102
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “[a] single prior art
reference that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a
claim invalidates that claim by anticipation.” Perricone v. Medicis Pharm.
4
Appeal 2009-007180
Application 10/975,806

Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).
“Anticipation of a patent claim requires a finding that the claim at issue
‘reads on’ a prior art reference.” Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d
1342, 1346 (Fed Cir. 1999). “In other words, if granting patent protection
on the disputed claim would allow the patentee to exclude the public from
practicing the prior art, then that claim is anticipated, regardless of whether
it also covers subject matter not in the prior art.” Id. (citations omitted).

V. ANALYSIS
With respect to independent claim 1, Appellants argue that “Speasl
does not show a device that (1) receives first data in a first format and (2)
stores in that same first format second data that is received in a second
format” (App. Br. 5). Further, Appellants emphasize that “the claim recites:
conversion of data from a non-camera type data acquisition device to a
format of data from a camera-type arrangement” (App. Br. 6-7; see also
Reply Br. 2).
The Examiner states that “Applicant seems to rely on converting
second data in second format based on the first data in first format which
have been previously received,” but “the features upon which applicant
relies on are not recited in the rejected claim(s)” (Ans. 11; Board’s
emphasis).
Accordingly, an issue we address on appeal is whether Speasl
discloses the limitation of “converting the second data into further second
data stored in the first format” wherein “the second data being received in a
second format from a non-camera type data acquisition device” (claim 1).
5
Appeal 2009-007180
Application 10/975,806

We begin our analysis by giving the claims their broadest reasonable
interpretation. See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1324. Furthermore, our analysis
will not read limitations into the claims from the specification. See In re
Van Geuns, 988 F.2d at 1184.
We agree with the Examiner’s finding that the claimed device need
not convert the second data based on received first data. That is, claim 1
merely recites “converting the second data into further second data stored in
the first format.” Thus, we interpret claim 1 as merely requiring that the
second data be converted from the second format to the first format, which is
a format including pixel and synchronization information. The language of
claim 1 does not in any way restrict the manner by which the second data is
converted to the first format.
Speasl discloses a port configured to receive first data in a first
format, such as JPEG or MPEG, from a camera-type arrangement such as a
digital camera (FF 2). The port also is also configured to receive second
data in a second format, which may be different from the first format, from a
non-camera type data acquisition device such as a PDA or PC (FF 2 and 3).
The portable memory device can transform the second format to the first
format, such as JPEG or MPEG, because it can convert between native
formats, user selected formats, and host device formats (FF 1 and 3). Speasl
therefore discloses receiving data of a particular format from a camera-type
arrangement at a port (FF 1-2) and receiving data of a particular format
from a non-camera arrangement at the same port (Id.), wherein the data
format of data from the non-camera type data acquisition device can be
converted to the data format of data from the camera arrangement (FF 1 and
3).
6
Appeal 2009-007180
Application 10/975,806

Accordingly, we find a skilled artisan would have understood Speasl’s
portable memory device as “converting the second data into further second
data stored in the first format” wherein “the second data being received in a
second format from a non-camera type data acquisition device (claim 1).
That is, Speasl’s “second data” is received as video or an image from a non-
camera host device (e.g., a PDA or PC) and transformed to the “first format”
having pixel and synchronization information (e.g., JPEG or MPEG).
As Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
1, we affirm the rejection of claim 1, and dependent claims 4-6 and 11
falling therewith, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Speasl.
As Appellants do not provide separate arguments for independent claim 9,
claim 9 falls with representative claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
We therefore also affirm the rejection of claim 9, and claims 12 and 14-16
falling therewith, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Speasl.
As to the rejections of claims 2, 3, 7-10, and 12-21, Appellants merely
argue that Michelson, Bellantoni, Funamoto, and Keery do not overcome the
alleged deficiencies of Speasl (App. Br. 7-9). Since we find no such
deficiencies, we affirm each of those rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

VI. CONCLUSIONS
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
1, 4-6, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Further, Appellants have not
shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2, 3, 7-10, and 12-21
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

7
Appeal 2009-007180
Application 10/975,806

VII. DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. §§
102(e) and 103(a) is affirmed.
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

peb

MOTOROLA, INC.
1303 EAST ALGONQUIN ROAD
IL01/3RD
SCHAUMBURG, IL 60196
8