Ex Parte Majewicz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 25, 2016

13024885 (P.T.A.B. May. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/024,885 02/10/2011
22879 7590 05/27/2016
HP Inc,
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Peter I. Majewicz
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.
82264247 1539
EXAMINER
KAO, YIH-SIEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2662
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/27/2016 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):
ipa.mail@hp.com
barbl@hp.com
yvonne.bailey@hp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PETER I. MAJEWICZ and JENNIFER L. MELIN
Appeal2014-005923
Application 13/024,885 1
Technology Center 2600
Before NATHAN A. ENGELS, CARLL. SILVERMAN, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-7, 12, 14, 19, and 20-23. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 8-11, 13, and 15-18 are subject to
objection. Final Act. 20.
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Hewlett-Packard
Development Company, LP. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2014-005923
Application 13/024,885
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to noise reduction in captured images. Abstract.
Claim 1 is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A method comprising:
digitally capturing a first image frame of a scene in the presence of
a flash and ambient light to produce pixels of the scene, wherein the
pixels each have a composite illuminance value from the first image
frame;
digitally capturing a second image frame of the scene in presence of
ambient light without a flash, wherein the pixels of the scene each have
an ambient only illuminance value from the second image frame; and
for each pixel of the scene:
(a) determining a flash only illuminance value by subtracting the
ambient only illuminance value from the composite illuminance value;
and
(b) determining a filtered illuminance value by applying one of a
plurality of different levels of noise suppression to the flash only
illuminance value based on the difference between the composite
illuminance value and the ambient only illuminance value.
App. Br. 19 (Claims Appendix).
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 7, 12, 14, 20-21, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pollard et al. (US 2002/0113882 Al;
Aug. 22,2002) ("Pollard") in view ofNakakuki (US 2008/0036885 Al;
Feb. 14, 2008). Final Act. 6-13.
2
Appeal2014-005923
Application 13/024,885
Claims 2 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Pollard, Nakakuki, and Pillman et al. (US 2012/0177352
Al; Jul. 12, 2012) ("Pillman"). Final Act. 13-14.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Pollard, Nakakuki, and well-known art. Final Act 15.
Claims 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Pollard, Nakakuki, and Asoma (US 7,948,538 B2; May
24, 2011 ). Final Act. 15-16.
Claims 19 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Pollard, Asama, Nakakuki, and Pillman et al. (US
2012/0177352 Al; July 12, 2012). Final Act. 16-20.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue Pollard and Nakakuki do not teach the limitation
"determining a filtered illuminance value by applying one of a plurality of
different levels of noise suppression to the flash only illuminance value
based on the difference between the composite illuminance value and the
ambient only illuminance value," as recited in claim 1 and independent
claim 20. App. Br. 12-13. According to Appellants:
claims 1 and 20 specifically ADDITIONALLY recite that the one of
the plurality different levels of noise suppression that is applied to the
flash only illuminance value is "BASED ON the difference between the
composite illuminance value and the ambient only illuminance value".
(Emphasis added). The Examiner has failed to present any evidence that
Nakakuki discloses or that it was generally known in the art to BASE
which of a plurality of different levels of noise suppression that is
3
Appeal2014-005923
Application 13/024,885
applied to the flash only illuminance UPON the difference between the
composite illuminance value and the ambient only illuminance value.
The rejection of claims 1 and 20 simply fails to address these limitations
of claim 1.
App. Br. 13.
The Examiner finds the combination of Pollard and N akakuki teaches
the claimed invention and relies on N akakuki for the disputed limitation.
Final Act. 6-7. In particular, the Examiner finds Nakakuki teaches applying
one of a plurality of different levels of noise suppression through its first,
second, and third de-noising parts. Id. at 7 (citing Nakakuki Fig. 2 elements
30a, 30b, 30c; i-fi-122-23). The Examiner concludes it would be obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art to replace Pollard's low pass filter with
Nakakuki's de-noising part. Id. at 7.
The Examiner further finds:
since the claim language states "one of a plurality of different levels
of noise suppression to the flash only illuminance value based on
the difference between the composite illuminance value and the
ambient only illuminance value" (emphasis added), this clearly
indicates that one only needs to consider one difference instead off!
plurality of differences. Apparently, Pollard in view of Nakakuki
teaches this requirement. As such, Appellant's argument is not
persuasive.
Ans. 18.
We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments because the disputed
claim limitation includes "applying one of a plurality of different levels of
noise suppression ... (emphasis added)" and the Examiner's interpretation
excludes the emphasized terms and is not consistent with the Specification
4
Appeal2014-005923
Application 13/024,885
which describes a plurality of different levels of noise suppression and
applies one of these levels of noise suppression based upon a difference
between the composite illuminance value and the ambient only value. See,
for example, Spec. i-fi-129, 30; Figs. 2, 3. Therefore, we determine the
Examiner's claim interpretation2 is unreasonably broad. Claim terms in a
patent application are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the Specification, as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. In
re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2004). However, great care should
be taken to avoid reading limitations of the Specification into the claims. E-
Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
In addition, we agree with Appellants the Examiner provides
inadequate basis that the combination of Pollard and Nakakuki teaches the
disputed limitation as correctly interpreted. App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 2; see
also 2--4. In particular, the Examiner does not sufficiently identify how
these references teach which one of a plurality of different levels of noise
suppression to apply, based on the difference between the composite
illuminance value and the ambient only level. As stated by the Supreme
Court, the Examiner's obviousness rejection must be based on
2 While not addressed by the Examiner, we note dependent claims, for
example, claims 21-23, may suggest independent claims 1 and 20 are
subject to broader interpretation based on the doctrine of claim
differentiation. Free Motion Fitness, Inc. v. Cybex Int'!, Inc., 423 F.3d
1343, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2005). In the event of further prosecution, the
Examiner is invited to confirm these claims comport with the requirements
of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
5
Appeal2014-005923
Application 13/024,885
some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness" .... [H]owever,
the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the
specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can
take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person
of ordinary skill in the art would employ.
KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn,
441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Here, the Examiner presents
inadequate articulated reasoning and rational underpinnings to support the
obviousness conclusion. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417-18.
In view of the above, based on the record before us, we are
constrained not to sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 20. We also do not
sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2-7, 12, 14, 21, and 23. Cf In re
Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ("[D]ependent claims are
nonobvious if the independent claims from which they depend are
nonobvious.").
Independent claim 19 recites the disputed limitation and additional
limitations of illuminance value and Bayer Mosaic space. The Examiner's
rejection applies Pollard and Nakakuki, and additional references Asoma
and Fillman. Final Act. 16-20; Ans. 18-20. We are persuaded by
Appellants' arguments as the additional references and the Examiner's
findings and conclusions do not remedy the defect regarding the disputed
limitation in claims 1 and 20, discussed above. App. Br. 15; Reply Br. 4.
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 19.
6
Appeal2014-005923
Application 13/024,885
Dependent claims 21-23 3 recite the limitation "wherein said one of
the plurality of different levels of noise suppression that is applied to the
flash only illuminance value is selected from the plurality [of] different
levels of noise suppression based on the difference between the composite
illuminance value in the ambient only illuminance value." App. Br. 24
(Claims Appendix).
The Examiner finds:
Nakakuki has already taught the use of multi-level noise suppression.
Nakakuki differs from the above limitation in that it does not expressly
teach selecting from the plurality different levels of noise
suppression based on the difference between the composite
illuminance value and the ambient only illuminance value.
Final Act. 19.
The Examiner then concludes it would have been an obvious matter of
design choice to modify N akakuki to obtain the claim 22 invention. Final
Act. 19-20. In particular, the Examiner finds a person of ordinary skill in the
art would provide adaptive noise suppression based on the composite
illuminance and the ambient only illuminance value because no advantage,
use for a particular purpose, or solved problem is disclosed. Id. Further, the
Examiner finds one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the
invention to perform equally well with Nakakuki's technique. Id.
3 Claim 22 depends from claim 19. Claims 21 and 23 depend from
previously discussed claims 1 and 20, respectively.
7
Appeal2014-005923
Application 13/024,885
Appellants argue, and we agree, the Examiner's findings and
conclusions regarding claim 22 are not supported by the record before us.
App. Br. 15-16. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 22. The
same issue is presented in the rejection of claims 21 and 23 and, therefore,
we also do not sustain the rejection of these claims.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-23.
REVERSED
8