Ex Parte Lee et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 7, 2018

14256585 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 2018)

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.
14/256,585 04/18/2014 Yongman LEE 0203-1330 1612
03/09/201868103 7590
Jefferson IP Law, LLP
1130 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 420
Washington, DC 20036
EXAMINER
TEJANO, DWIGHT ALEX C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2663
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/09/2018 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):
u sdocketing @ j effersonip .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YONGMAN LEE, KWANGYOUNG KIM, and SUNGDAE CHO
Appeal 2017-009519
Application 14/256,5851
Technology Center 2600
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, DENISE M. POTHIER, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1—3 and 8—10. Claims 4—7 and 11—142 have been objected to as
being dependent upon a rejected base claim and claims 15—21 are allowable.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellant identifies the applicant, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., as the
real party in interest. Br. 2.
2 Although Appellant appeals the objected claims (Br. 6), claims that are
objected to, but are not rejected, are not within the jurisdiction of the Board.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.31(a)(1). Accordingly, we do not address those claims in
this Decision.
Appeal 2017-009519
Application 14/256,585
THE INVENTION
The disclosed and claimed invention is directed to an electronic
device and method for operating the same. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for operating an electronic device, the method
comprising:
receiving a sensing image having a sensor pattern of an
image sensor and meta-information including sensing image
information related to the sensing image;
storing the sensing image and the sensing image
information including the meta-information;
receiving an event for displaying the stored sensing
image on a display unit operably connected with the electronic
device;
generating an output image to be displayed by the display
unit based on the sensing image, the meta-information and
mapping information on mapping the sensor pattern of the
image sensor to a bayer pattern of the display unit; and
displaying, by the display unit, the image.
REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Rubinstein US 2010/0220215 A1 Sept. 2,2010
REJECTION
Claims 1—3 and 8—10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as
being anticipated by Rubinstein. Final Act. 3—5.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we have
2
Appeal 2017-009519
Application 14/256,585
considered all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellant. We
are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments regarding claims 1—3 and 8—10.
Instead, we incorporate herein and adopt as our own: (1) the findings and
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken (Final Act. 3—5), (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth in the Advisory
Action (Adv. Act. 2-4), and (3) the reasons and rebuttals set forth in the
Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s arguments (Ans. 6—8). We
incorporate such findings, reasons, and rebuttals herein by reference unless
otherwise noted. However, we highlight and address specific findings and
arguments for emphasis as follows.
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding Rubinstein discloses
“receiving a sensing image having a sensor pattern of an image sensor and
meta-information including sensing image information related to the sensing
image,” as recited in claim 1. Br. 4—5. Specifically, Appellant argues
“Rubenstein [Figure 5] describes the ‘compressed video stream 508’
including ‘packets that contain encoded pixel data and encoded metadata
that describes how portions of the data have been encoded, and also include
packets that represent various types of delimiters, including end-of-sequence
end-of-stream delimiters.’” Br. 4. But, according to Appellant, that does not
include a sensor pattern of an image sensor. Id. Appellant further argues the
Bayer filter mosaic disclosed in Figure 31 and paragraph 59 does not cure
this deficiency:
In this case, one or more of the arrays 3102 and 3104 of
Rubenstein FIG. 31 are simply a Bayer filter mosaic (see
Rubenstein paragraph 104). However, the Bayer filter mosaic
is not sent in FIG. 5 of Rubenstein, but pixel data (see
Rubenstein paragraph 59). Accordingly, even where the Bayer
filter is used, there is no description in Rubenstein FIG. 5 that
3
Appeal 2017-009519
Application 14/256,585
the packets of the “compressed video stream 508” include “a
sensor pattern of an image sensor” as recited. Rubenstein
describes the “compressed video stream 508” including
“packets that contain encoded pixel data and encoded metadata
that describes how portions of the data have been encoded, and
also include packets that represent various types of delimiters,
including end-of-sequence end-of-stream delimiters.” There is
no description of the inclusion of “a sensor pattern of an image
sensor” as recited.
Br. 5.
The Examiner finds Rubinstein discloses a “video stream is made up
of a series of images being transmitted at some frame rate” and that “the
image sensor (502) outputs imaging data in a video stream (504) to the video
encoder (506), which then processes the stream for remote output to another
device, such as a display or a client device.” Ans. 5. The Examiner further
finds the video stream will include the sensor pattern of an image sensor:
Because the compressed video stream is a video
comprising digital images captured by the image sensor, this
compressed video stream must be made up of pixels that
constitute the digital images. Rubinstein discloses that their
image sensor uses some color filter array (3102) or, more
specifically, a Bayer pattern filter (3202), and as such, the
compressed video stream must be made up of images
containing “a sensor pattern of an image sensor.”
Id.; see also Adv. Act. 2 (finding “the image containing a sensor pattern (a
frame of the video stream captured with the Bayer filter) and
metainformation [sic] (data, such as header data, encoded with the video
stream) is considered disclosed by Rubenstein”).
Figure 5 discloses sensor 502 generating a video stream made of
pixels. Figures 31 and 32 disclose that the sensor can include a color filter
array, such as a Bayer color filter array. Rubenstein || 104—105. Therefore,
4
Appeal 2017-009519
Application 14/256,585
Rubenstein discloses a sensor generating a video stream made of pixels
generated using a Bayer image pattern, which the Specification describes as
an example of a sensor pattern. See Spec. 156. Accordingly, we are not
persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner erred.
Appellant further argues the Examiner erred in finding Rubenstein
discloses “storing the sensing image and the sensing image information
including the meta-information” as recited in claim 1. Br. 5. According to
Appellant, “Rubenstein merely shows a compressed stream input to a video
encoder and decoder, and a compressed stream and video stream out” but
does not describe storing any information. Id. Appellant further argues that
even when the data is stored, “there is no disclosure that it is stored as the
‘the sensing image and the sensing image information including the meta­
information’ as recited.” Id.
The Examiner finds the Rubenstein Figure 5 discloses the “video
stream containing] various metadata . . . and [it] would inherently have to
be stored somewhere (such as in RAM) in order to then be output to a target
display.” Final Act. 2—3; see also Adv. Act. 3 (explaining why the data of
the video stream must be stored); Ans. 6 (“This compressed video stream
must be stored somewhere in the device, in order for the video to be
streamed out. At minimum, the compressed video stream needs to at least
be temporarily stored in the video encoder 506, as the video is being
processed.”).
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference.” Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d
628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). “To establish inherency, the extrinsic evidence
5
Appeal 2017-009519
Application 14/256,585
must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in
the thing described in the reference, and that it would be so recognized by
persons of ordinary skill.” In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir.
1999). Further, the Examiner must provide a basis in fact and/or technical
reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the allegedly inherent
characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art.
In re Cruciferous Sprout Litig., 301 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Because the Examiner is relying on an inherent characteristic,
Appellant’s argument that the reference does not disclose storing the
metadata is not persuasive. Instead, because the Examiner provides a
sufficient basis in fact and technical reasoning to support the finding that the
claimed metadata is stored, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument
that the Examiner erred.
Appellant also contends the Examiner erred in finding Rubenstein
discloses the generating and displaying steps recited in claim 1. Br. 5—6.
According to Appellant, “Rubenstein merely discloses the features of
encoding the raw image for sending the video stream to a display unit and
decoding the compressed video stream for outputting the image on the
display unit.” Id. at 5. Appellant also argues “[tjhere is no description of
features of receiving an event for displaying the stored sensing image on a
display unit operably connected with the electronic device.” Id. at 5—6.
The Examiner finds Rubenstein discloses the generating and
displaying steps recited in claim 1. Final Act. 3^4 (citing Rubenstein || 52,
105, Fig. 10A—D); Adv. Act. 3^4; Ans. 7. More specifically, the Examiner
finds:
6
Appeal 2017-009519
Application 14/256,585
As stated in [0052], the digital image captured by the
system can be displayed on display devices. Further,
Rubenstein states in [0057], the compressed video stream is
received by a video display device and is decoded to display the
video, such as in a manner as disclosed in [0052.]
This process encompasses the “receiving an event,”
“generating an output,” and “displaying” as required by the
current claim. If, as Rubenstein discloses, the video is
compressed and output to a handheld device, and the user of the
handheld device opens that video, then all three steps have
occurred. The act of displaying an image on a display as
disclosed in [0052, 0057] must have included a) some trigger to
play the video (whether automatically by the system or by user
intervention), b) some image generated from the stream
(because the display cannot show a video without the frames of
the video), and c) displaying the image.
Adv. Act. 3^4; see also Ans. 7 (providing further rational to support the
finding).
Anticipation does not require “the reference [to] satisfy an ipsissimis
verbis test.” In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Moreover,
“it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference
but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be
expected to draw therefrom.” In rePreda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968);
see also In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (holding that
prior art reference must be “considered together with the knowledge of one
of ordinary skill in the pertinent art” (quoting In re Samour, 571 F.2d 559,
562 (CCPA 1978))). Although Rubenstein does not use the same words as
the claim, the Examiner’s findings are supported by how a person of
ordinary skill in the art would understand the reference. Therefore, we are
not persuaded that the Examiner erred.
7
Appeal 2017-009519
Application 14/256,585
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, along
with the rejection of claim 8, which is argued on the same grounds, and the
rejection of dependent claims 2, 3, 9, and 10, which are not argued
separately. See Br. 6.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 1—3 and 8—10.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. §41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
8