Ex Parte Matsimanis et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 18, 2018

14813988 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 18, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/813,988 07/30/2015
138908 7590 09/19/2018
Burrus Intellectual Property Law Group
(MM Files)
222 12th Street NE
Suite 1803
Atlanta, GA 30309
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Peter A. Matsimanis
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.
MM01338 1721
EXAMINER
WANG,XI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2661
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/19/2018 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PETER A. MATSIMANIS, MICHAEL GUNN, and
V ALERIY MARCHEVSKY
Appeal2018-002242 1
Application 14/813,988
Technology Center 2600
Before ADAM J. PYONIN, MELISSA A. RAAP ALA, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The Application is directed to "determin[ing] whether received or
obtained weather data of a location where an image was captured indicates
one or more weather conditions causing distortion in an image," in order to
1 "The real party in interest is Motorola Mobility LLC, 100% interest
assignee of record." App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-002242
Application 14/813,988
perform the applicable "distortion reduction, such as by applying a
defogging algorithm to the image, to reduce weather-related distortion
occurring in an image." Spec. ,r 22. Claims 1 and 14 are independent.
Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference:
1. A method in portable electronic device, comprising:
detecting, at the portable electronic device comprising one
or more processors, an imager, a communication circuit, and a
memory, and a display, distortion in an image captured by the
imager of the electronic device;
obtaining, by the one or more processors with the
communication circuit, weather data of a location where the
image was captured from a remote server across a network;
determining, by the one or more processors, whether the
weather data indicates one or more weather conditions causing
the distortion; and
where the one or more weather conditions cause the
distortion, performing, with the one or more processors,
distortion reduction on the image to reduce weather-related
distortion occurring in the image; and
presenting a distortion-reduced image on the display.
References and Re} ections
Claims 1--4, 7, 9, 10, 12, and 14--18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Kim (US 2015/0043818 Al; Feb. 12, 2015)
and Choe (US 2015/0341590 Al; Nov. 26, 2015). Final Act. 3.
Claims 5, 6, 8, 11, 13, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over various combinations of Kim, Choe, and other
prior art references. Final Act. 10-13.
2
Appeal2018-002242
Application 14/813,988
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments, considering only those arguments Appellants actually raised in
the Briefs. See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("it has
long been the Board's practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged
error in the examiner's rejections"). We are not persuaded the Examiner
errs. We adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions as our own, and
add the following for emphasis.
Appellants argue the Examiner's rejection of the independent claims
is in error because:
The combination of Kim and Choe fails to teach the limitations
of claims 1 and 14 . . . . because neither reference teaches
determining, from weather data retrieved from a remote server
across a network, whether the weather data indicates that
distortion is caused by weather. Kim merely teaches detecting
distortion in images and always correcting it regardless of source.
Choe merely adjusts a shutter in response to environmental
conditions so that future pictures will be captured with altered
shutter settings.
App. Br. 13 (emphasis omitted). Appellants contend that, instead of the
claimed weather information-based image correction, the cited references
combine to teach that "weather and other data will be used to adjust shutters,
as taught by Ch[]oe, and all images having distortion will be corrected by
Kim's post-processing system, .... regardless of whether weather, dirty
imagers, or other phenomena caused the distortion." App. Br. 15 (emphasis
omitted).
We agree with the Examiner that Appellants' arguments are not
commensurate with the scope of the claims. Ans. 18; see also, e.g., App. Br.
13 ("Kim always corrects images. Thus, a user will never know whether the
3
Appeal2018-002242
Application 14/813,988
imager is dirty."). Claim 1 recites determining "where the one or more
weather conditions cause the distortion, performing, with the one or more
processors, distortion reduction on the image to reduce weather-related
distortion occurring in the image" ( emphasis added); there is no mention in
the claim of what occurs if the distortion is not caused by weather. 2 We
agree with the Examiner that the claim, in light of the Specification, does not
preclude distortion reduction upon determining the distortion is not caused
by weather. Ans. 18; see Spec. ,r,r 63, 94--95 (explaining that when "the
weather data would not indicate weather conditions that could be causing the
distortion," the device can nevertheless "perform distortion reduction on the
image" because "techniques can be used not only to reduce weather related
distortion, but other distortion as well."). Thus, Appellants' arguments that
"correcting distorted images regardless of the source of that distortion is
simply not what Appellant[ s] claim[]" are unpersuasive of Examiner error.
App. Br. 15.
Further, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in finding
"combining reference Choe with reference Kim can further confirm the
image distortion detected in Kim is caused by weather phenomena such as
rain or snow or fog." Ans. 18. Kim's device, as relied on by the Examiner,
will "search for an image damaged by weather phenomena, for example fog,
yellow dust, and the like, and may recover the image" (Kim ,r 39) by
"remov[ing] an effect of a weather environment, for example fog, yellow
dust, and the like, based on modeling of the weather environment" (Kim
2 See Ex parte Schulhauser, No. 2013-007847, 2016 WL 6277792, at *4
(PT AB Apr. 28, 2016) (precedential) ( discussing construction of conditional
limitations in method claims).
4
Appeal2018-002242
Application 14/813,988
,r 69). 3 See Final Act. 3; Kim Figs. 1, 2. The Examiner is correct in finding
Choe teaches "obtaining ... weather data of a location where the image was
captured," which Choe uses to classify images. Final Act. 4; see also Choe
Fig. 3; ,r,r 44, 48, 52.
Appellants have not persuasively shown the Examiner errs in finding
one of ordinary skill would combine Kim and Choe as claimed, to "provide
additional image related information to confirm image distortion caused by
weather condition and also for better image classification." Final Act. 4; see
also Ans. 17-18; Kim ,r,r 43--44. Rather, we agree with the Examiner that
the combination was obvious at the time of invention, as Choe's location
based weather data will improve Kim's teachings of detecting and correcting
weather-distorted images. A "person of ordinary skill is also a person of
ordinary creativity, not an automaton" and Choe' s weather data will have
"obvious uses beyond their primary purposes," so that here "a person of
ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together
like pieces of a puzzle." KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420,
421 (2007).
Based on the foregoing, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in
finding "the combination of references disclose determining weather
phenomena causes image distortion," within the meaning of the claim. Ans.
18. We sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. Appellants do not
provide additional substantive arguments for the remaining claims (see App.
3 We further note Kim teaches "classif[ying] information of an input image
into a normal image and a weather environment image representing a
weather environment," by using an equation that produces "a
distinguishment result of images based on fog, yellow dust, and the like."
Kim ,r,r 93-94.
5
Appeal2018-002242
Application 14/813,988
Br. 12, 16); as such, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2-20 for
the same reasons as discussed herein.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 is 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).
AFFIRMED
6