Ex Parte Lablans

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 30, 2017

12634058 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2017)

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.
12/634,058 12/09/2009 Peter Lablans PET0003-01CP 6866
93697
Peter T ahlans;
7590 12/04/2017 EXAMINER
8 Harvey Court
Morris Township, NJ 07960
AN, SHAWN S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2483
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/04/2017 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):
docket @ ternary logic .com
ipdocket @ verizon. net
lablans @ ternary logic, com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PETER LAB LANS
Appeal 2016-000011
Application 12/634,058
Technology Center 2400
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and
LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
27-46. Claims 1—26 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal 2016-000011
Application 12/634,058
REJECTIONS
Claims 27-46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over various combinations of Pockett (US 2007/0248260 Al; Oct. 25,
2007), Guyton et al. (US 6,027,216; Feb. 22, 2000), Baharav et al. (US
6,989,862 B2; Jan. 24, 2006), Frenkel et al. (US 8,320,992 B2; Nov. 27,
2012), Cutler (US 7,495,694 B2; Feb. 24, 2009), and Roddy et al. (US
7,301,497 B2; Nov. 27, 2007).
ANALYSIS
Appellant’s claimed invention concerns methods and apparatuses for
creating and displaying stereoscopic and panoramic images. See
Specification, Abstract, filed December 9, 2009. Claims 27, 37, and 41 are
independent. Claim 27 recites in relevant part “camera control data . . .
“based on the size of the rotational misalignment angle” that “set an active
sensor area of the image sensor” of first and second imaging units. Appeal
Brief 35, filed December 12, 2014 (“App. Br.”). Independent claims 37 and
41 recite similar limitations. See App. Br. 37—38.
The Examiner found that Figure 8 and paragraphs 23—30 and 99 of
Pockett teach the recited “camera control data.” See, e.g., Final Office
Action 4, mailed June 26, 2014; Answer 14, mailed March 12, 2015.
Appellant argues the cited portions of Pockett disclose determining and
correcting disparities between images, not data that sets the active sensor
area of an image sensor for first and second imaging units. See, e.g., App.
Br. 17.
2
Appeal 2016-000011
Application 12/634,058
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments, and we agree with Appellant that the Examiner erred. The cited
portions of Pockett describe the effects of camera displacement on captured
images and disclose correction values. See Pockett || 23—30, 99, Figs. 8a—
8f. Although Pockett discloses using correction values to modify captured
images, see, e.g., Pockett 1105, the cited portions of Pockett do not teach or
suggest using this data to set the active sensor area of an image sensor for
first and second imaging units. Therefore, based on the record before us, we
do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of independent claims 27, 37, and
41 and their respective dependent claims.
DECISION
We reverse the rejections of claims 27-46.
REVERSED
3