13628425 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 15, 2018)

Ex Parte Eromaki

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 15, 2018

13628425 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 15, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/628,425 09/27/2012 10948 7590 10/17/2018 Harrington & Smith, Attorneys At Law, LLC 4 Research Drive, Suite 202 Shelton, CT 06484 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Marko Eromaki 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. 800.1234.Ul(US) 1363 EXAMINER MOREHEAD III, JOHN H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2664 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/17/2018 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): USPTO@hspatent.com Nokia.IPR@nokia.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MARKO EROMAKI Appeal 2018-003125 Application 13/628,425 1 Technology Center 2600 Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, LARRY J. HUME, and JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges. CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's non- final rejection of claims 1-13, which are all of the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We reverse. 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Nokia Technologies Oy. App. Br. 1. Appeal 2018-003125 Application 13/628,425 INVENTION Appellant's application relates to an apparatus, method and computer program for reducing blurring in captured images. Spec. 1 (Technological Field). Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed subject matter and reads as follows ( emphasis added): 1. An apparatus comprising: an optical arrangement configured to provide an incident light beam to an image sensor; a first actuator mechanism comprising a first magnet and a first coil, the first actuator mechanism configured to move the optical arrangement relative to the image sensor in a direction perpendicular to the image sensor; a second actuator mechanism comprising a second magnet and a second coil, the second actuator mechanism configured to move the optical arrangement relative to the image sensor in a direction parallel to the image sensor; and wherein when movement of the second magnet relative to the second coil occurs, the first magnet and the first coil remain in a fixed position relative to the image sensor such that the first magnet and the first coil do not move with the movement of the second coil. REJECTION Claims 1-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I02(b) as anticipated by Wu et al. (US 7,881,598 Bl; issued Feb. 1, 2011) ("Wu"). Non-Final Act. 3. ANALYSIS Rejection of Claims 1-13 under 35 US.C. Â§ 102(b) In our analysis of the rejection of independent claim 1, we focus our attention on the following limitation: wherein when movement of the second magnet relative to the second coil occurs, the first magnet and the first coil remain 2 Appeal 2018-003125 Application 13/628,425 in a fixed position relative to the image sensor such that the first magnet and the first coil do not move with the movement of the second coil. (Claim 1 ). In rejecting claim 1 as anticipated by Wu, the Examiner found Wu's anti-shake mechanism 30's y-axis magnet 37y moves independently from the x-axis magnet 37x. Non-Final Act. 5. The Examiner specifically found that "if the second magnet and coil does not move simultaneously, then during that point in time" the disputed "wherein" claim limitation is met. Non-Final Act. 5 (emphasis omitted); Ans. 7. Appellant contends the Examiner erred because Wu does not teach the first coil remaining in a fixed position relative to the image sensor such that the first magnet and first coil do not move with the movement of the second coil. App. Br. 11-13. As Appellant explains, Appellant's Specification describes that the second magnet 15 and the second coil 17 together form an anti-shake mechanism and the first magnet and coil do not move with the movement of the second coil because the lateral movement of the optical sensor 3 is being corrected with the anti-shake mechanism while the autofocus mechanism is held in place. Reply Br. 8-9. Appellant argues Wu is structurally different, and further argues Wu's anti-shake mechanism and auto-focus mechanism are coupled and move together in the x-y direction relative to the image sensor. Reply Br. 6-7. We find the Examiner has not fully developed the record to show how Wu discloses the disputed limitation. The Examiner finds that, in Wu: each magnet can move independently of each other, hence being able to move perpendicular or parallel (i.e. in a "x" direction or "y" direction, furthermore prior to either magnet moving, both magnets are in a fixed position before a signal is received to 3 Appeal 2018-003125 Application 13/628,425 cause one or the other magnet to move, lastly as long as both magnets and both coils do not move at the same time, when one magnet and coil moves, if the second magnet and coil does not move simultaneously, then during that point in time ... , the claim limitation(s) has been met. .. ). Non-Final Act. 5 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner further finds that, even if the first magnet and first coil cause the second magnet and second coil to move, they do not move simultaneously and, thus, the first magnet and first coil do not move with the movement of the second magnet and second coil. Ans. 7. Appellant argues claim 1 requires that the second actuator mechanism does not move the first actuator mechanism, while Wu discloses that anti- shake mechanism 30 moves with auto-focus module 20. App. Br. 13-14 (citing Wu, Fig. 2, col. 4:13-19). Appellant further argues because Wu's deviation compensation winding assembly includes driving windings 36x and 36y on the anti-shake mechanism 30 and is fixedly connected via fixing member 34 to a bottom of the auto-focus module 20, the auto-focus magnets 26 and the winding 23 will not remain in a fixed position when the anti-shake mechanism 30 operates. Id. We agree with Appellant that the Examiner erred. The Examiner did not cite sufficient support in Wu for the teaching of the disputed limitation. In particular, the Examiner did not adequately explain why anti-shake mechanism 30 in Wu does not move with auto-focus module 20 in light of Wu's disclosure that auto-focus module 20 is fixed to, and sits atop, anti- shake mechanism 30. See Reply Br. 1 O; Wu, Fig. 2. Moreover, to the extent the Examiner relied on an interpretation of the disputed limitation that requires a lack of simultaneous movement (see Ans. 7), the Examiner has not provided sufficient explanation or reasoning as to why such 4 Appeal 2018-003125 Application 13/628,425 interpretation is the broadest, reasonable interpretation consistent with Appellant's Specification. 2 For these reasons, on the record before us, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Wu discloses the disputed "wherein" clause of claim 1. 3 Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner'sÂ§ 102(b) rejection of independent claim 1 and the Â§ 102(b) rejection of independent claims 9 and 12, which both recite the contested limitation using commensurate language. Because we have reversed each independent claim on appeal, we also reverse each associated dependent claim rejected under the anticipation rejection over Wu. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-13. REVERSED 2 We give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). "In the patentability context, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretations ... limitations are not to be read into the claims from the specification." In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ( citations omitted). 3 Because we agree with at least one of the dispositive arguments advanced by Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant's other arguments. See Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (finding an administrative agency is at liberty to reach a decision based on "a single dispositive issue"). 5