Ex Parte Kravitz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 21, 2018

14557476 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/557,476 12/02/2014
123590 7590 12/26/2018
D. KUGLER I.P. SERVICES LTD.
P.O. BOX 57651
TEL A VIV, 61576
ISRAEL
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Daniel Kravitz
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.
P24072US 1/1020-1117 .1 7049
EXAMINER
WANG,XI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2661
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/26/2018 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):
INFO@DKPAT.CO.IL
daniel@dkpat.co.il
alon@dkpat.co.il
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DANIEL KRAVITZ, NIV GILBOA, YOHAI ZMORA,
ZAFRIR MOR, and JONATHAN POKRASS
Appeal2018-003923
Application 14/557,476
Technology Center 2600
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants 1 appeal from the
Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-3, 5-9, 11, 12, and 19-28. Claims 4,
10, and 13-18 have been canceled. App. Br. 1. We have jurisdiction over
the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Apple Inc. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2018-003923
Application 14/557,476
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 'Invention
Appellants' invention generally relates to "calibration of camera
modules used in mobile devices." Spec. 2:10. The Specification explains:
[J]ust turning the camera module (or the mobile device in which
the module is installed) on its side can change its focal properties
due to the change in the direction of gravitational pull on the
components of the module. For simple picture taking, the
resulting image distortion or shift may not be significant. When
the output images are to be analyzed and used in measurements,
however, these changes in focal properties can affect
measurement accuracy.
Spec. 5:20-28. Appellants' invention "take[s] advantage of the existing
IMU [inertial measurement units of the mobile device], and possibly the
temperature sensor, as well, in correcting for changes in the focal properties
of the camera module." Spec. 6:13-15. Claim 1, which is illustrative of the
claimed invention, reads as follows:
1. A mobile device, comprising:
a camera module, comprising a lens and an image sensor
that lie along a focal axis;
an inertial sensor, which is configured to output a signal
indicative of an orientation of the device; and
a controller, which is configured to correct for a
displacement, between the lens and the image sensor, in a
direction that is transverse to the focal axis, caused by a change
in a direction of gravitational pull on components of the camera
module that results from the mobile device being turned on its
side, responsively to:
the signal from the inertial sensor indicating that the
mobile device is being held on its side, and
2
Appeal2018-003923
Application 14/557,476
stored values indicative of a dependence of the
displacement on the orientation.
References2
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Nakazawa
Uenaka
Saito et al.
Chen et al.
Matsuyama
Ogura et al.
US 2005/0063694 Al
US 2009/0245768 Al
US 2012/0163784 Al
US 2012/0268645 Al
US 2014/0354781 Al
US 2015/0138430 Al
Rejections3
Mar. 24, 2005
Oct. 1, 2009
June 28, 2012
Oct. 25, 2012
Dec. 4, 2014
May 21, 2015
Claims 1, 7, 25, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination ofUenaka and Saito. Final Act. 4--
9.
Claims 2, 3, 8, 9, and 19-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination ofUenaka, Saito, and Chen.
Final Act. 9-13.
Claims 5 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination ofUenaka, Saito, and Nakazawa. Final
Act. 13-14.
Claims 6 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination ofUenaka, Saito, and Matsuyama. Final
Act. 14--15.
2 All citations herein to the prior art are by reference to the first named
inventor only.
3 The Examiner withdrew a previously issued rejection of claims 1-3, 5-9,
11, 12, and 19-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Ans. 4.
3
Appeal2018-003923
Application 14/557,476
Claims 27 and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination ofUenaka, Saito, and Ogura. Final
Act. 15-16.
Dispositive Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination ofUenaka and
Saito teaches or suggests
a controller, which is configured to correct for a
displacement, between the lens and the image sensor, in a
direction that is transverse to the focal axis, caused by a change
in a direction of gravitational pull on components of the camera
module that results from the mobile device being turned on its
side, responsively to:
the signal from the inertial sensor indicating that the
mobile device is being held on its side, and
stored values indicative of a dependence of the
displacement on the orientation.
as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend the combination ofUenaka and Saito fails to teach
or suggest the disputed limitations because the cited references:
[N]either describe[] nor render[] obvious correcting for a
transverse displacement between a lens and an image sensor
responsively to a signal from an inertial sensor indicating that the
mobile device is being held on its side, let alone performing such
a correction responsively to stored values indicative of a
dependence of the transverse displacement on the orientation
of the mobile device.
4
Appeal2018-003923
Application 14/557,476
App. Br. 9. Appellants argue the corrections taught in the cited references
are described as stabilization ( e.g., correcting for the movement of the
photographic device (see, e.g., Uenaka ,r 4)) performed in response to
camera shake. App. Br. 9--12. Appellants' arguments are persuasive.
Regarding the disputed limitations, the Examiner finds Uenaka
teaches:
By moving the movable platform 30a in the x direction, the first
stabilization for correcting the hand shake caused by yaw, which
is the first hand-shake displacement angle around the y direction,
is performed; and by moving the movable platform 30a in the
y direction, the second stabilization for correcting the hand shake
caused by pitch, which is the second hand-shake displacement
angle around the x direction, is performed.
Id. at 8. However, as Appellants argue (App. Br. 9--10), the Examiner's
findings are insufficient to show that the displacement corrected for in
Uenaka is a correction for a displacement between the lens and the image
sensor. Instead, Uenaka teaches correcting for a displacement of the
photographic apparatus caused by hand shake. See Uenaka ,r,r 4, 45, 63
("The first angular velocity sensor 26a detects the angular velocity of rotary
motion of the photographic apparatus 1 around the axis of the y direction
(the yaw)." (Emphasis added)), 64 ("The second angular velocity sensor
26b detects the angular velocity of rotary motion of the photographic
apparatus 1 around the axis of the x direction (the pitch)." (Emphasis
added)), 80 ("The CUP 21 also calculates the inclination angle (third digital
displacement angle K8n) of the photographic apparatus 1, formed by
rotation of the photographic apparatus 1 around its optical axis LX ... ").
As such, we are persuaded the Examiner erred.
5
Appeal2018-003923
Application 14/557,476
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1;
the rejection of independent claim 7, which recites similar language, or of
claims 25 and 26, which respectively depend from claims 1 and 7.
With respect to the remaining obviousness rejections of dependent
claim claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 19--24, 27, and 28, the Examiner
does not rely on any of the additionally cited references to cure noted the
deficiency ofUenaka and Saito. See Final Act. 9--16. Accordingly, we
likewise do not sustain those rejections for the reasons set forth in relation to
independent claims 1 and 7.
We do not reach Appellants' further allegations of error because we
find the issue discussed above to be dispositive as to the rejection of all the
pending claims.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-3, 5-9, 11, 12, and
19--28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
6