Ex Parte Liang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 23, 2016

12774491 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121774,491 05/05/2010
23696 7590 03/25/2016
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED
5775 MOREHOUSE DR.
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Liang Liang
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.
093521 8113
EXAMINER
BECK,LERON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2487
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/25/2016 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):
us-docketing@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LIANG LIANG and SZEPO R. HUNG
Appeal2014-002534
Application 12/774,491
Technology Center 2400
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
JON M. JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judges.
WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants are appealing the final rejection of claims 1--44 under 35
U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b) (2012).
We affirm.
Introduction
The invention is directed to "methods, systems and articles for
controlling video encoding based on an estimated blurriness level of a video
frame captured during a refocusing process of a video capture module, e.g.,
a camera." Appeal Brief 2.
Appeal2014-002534
Application 12/774,491
Representative Claim (disputed limitations emphasized)
1. A method comprising:
estimating, in a video capture module, a blurriness level of a
frame of video data captured during a refocusing process of the
video capture module; and
encoding, in a video encoder, the frame based at least in part
on the estimated blurriness level of the frame.
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 12, 23, and 34 stand provisionally rejected on the ground of
nonstatutory obviousness type double patenting as being unpatentable over
claims 1, 13, 25, and 36 of co-pending Application Number 13/114,844, in
view of Park (US Patent Application Publication 2009/0074396 Al;
published March 19, 2009). Final Rejection 4--7.
Claims 1, 3, 12, 14, 23, 25, 34, and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Park and Gutman (US Patent
Application Publication Number 2010/0278231 Al; published November 4,
20 l 0). Final Rejection 8-9.
Claims 2, 13, 24, and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Park, Gutman, and Hsu (US Patent Number
7,528,883 B2; issued May 5, 2009). Final Rejection 9-10.
Claims 4, 15, 26, and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Park, Gutman, Goldstein (US Patent Application
Publication Number 2004/0179593 Al; published September 16, 2004), and
Kim (US Patent Application Publication Number 2009/0244319 Al;
October 1, 2009). Final Rejection 10-12.
Claims 5, 16, 27, and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Park, Gutman, Morino (US Patent Number
6,822,758 Bl; issued November 23, 2004), and Kim. Final Rejection 12-13.
2
Appeal2014-002534
Application 12/774,491
Claims 6, 17, 28, and 39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Park, Gutman, Morino, and Park 2 (US Patent
Application Publication Number 2010/0086035 Al; published April 8,
2010). Final Rejection 13-15.
Claims 7, 18, 29, and 40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Park, Gutman, and Au (US Patent Number
7,720, 148 B2; issued May 18, 2010). Final Rejection 15-16.
Claims 8, 19, 30, and 41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Park, Gutman, Au, and Kim. Final Rejection 16-18.
Claims 9, 20, 31, and 42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Park, Gutman, and Kim 2 (US Patent Application
Publication Number 2009/0051783 Al; published February 26, 2009). Final
Rejection 18-19.
Claims 10, 21, 32, and 43 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Park, Gutman, Kim 2, Yamasaki (US Patent
Number 7 ,084,909 B2; issued August 1, 2006), and Kim. Final Rejection
19-21.
Claims 11, 22, 33, and 44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Park, Gutman, and Yoda (US Patent Application
Publication Number 2011/0150366 Al; published June 23, 2011). Final
Rejection 21-22.
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed September 11, 2013), the Reply Brief
(filed January 8, 2014), the Answer (mailed November 8, 2013) and the
Final Rejection (mailed July 3, 2013) for the respective details. We have
3
Appeal2014-002534
Application 12/774,491
considered in this decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised
in the Briefs.
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants'
conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to
Appellants' Appeal Brief, and concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner. We highlight the following for emphasis.
Appellants did not argue the merits of the nonstatutory obviousness-
type double patenting rejection of claims 1, 12, 23, and 34. Therefore we
sustain the Examiner's rejection. See Appeal Brief 2.
Ground 1
Appellants argue that "Gutman's encoding method is not properly
combinable with Park's auto-focus method" because "Gutman's encoding
method intentionally blurs images; whereas Park's auto-focus method
sharpens images." Appeal Brief 6. Appellants further argue, "Because
Gutman's image blurring encoder method would necessarily ruin Park's
imaging focusing, it would render unsatisfactory Park's intended purpose of
high-speed auto-focusing of an image. In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900." Appeal
Brief 6.
The Examiner finds that "it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to teach the
method disclosed by Park to disclose encoding, in a video encoder, the frame
based at least in part on the estimated blurriness level of the frame, as taught
4
Appeal2014-002534
Application 12/774,491
by Gutman to improve the quality of image video." Answer 8. We agree
with the Examiner's findings.
The test for obviousness 1s not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
stn1cture of the primary reforence; nor is it that the claimed
invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the
art
See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425(CCPA1981). Appellants have not
argued the combination of the references. Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 1, 3, 12, 14, 23, 25, 34, and 36
argued together. See Appeal Brief 9.
Grounds 2-10
Appellants argue that claims 2, 4--11, 13, 15-22, 24, 26-33, 35, and
37--44 were rejected erroneously because the additional cited art does not
cure the deficiencies of the Park and Gutman combination. Appeal Brief 9-
12. We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive because we did not
find the Park and Gutman combination deficient. Therefore we sustain the
Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 2, 4--11, 13, 15-22, 24, 26-33,
35, and 37--44.
DECISION
The Examiner's nonstatutory obviousness type double patenting
rejection of claims 1, 12, 23, and 34 is affirmed.
The Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 1--44 are 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)(l )(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
5
Appeal2014-002534
Application 12/774,491
AFFIRMED
6