Ex Parte McConica

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 24, 2012

11122906 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 24, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte CHARLES H. McCONICA

Appeal 2010-002437
Application 11/122,906
Technology Center 2600
______________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, and DAVID M.
KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judges.

Per Curiam

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-002437
Application 11/122,906
2

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1 through 16 and 18 through 20.
We affirm.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method of reducing blur in a digital
image. See Specification pages 14 and 15. Claim 1 is representative of the
claimed invention under appeal and reproduced below:

1. A method for reducing motion blur in a digital image, said
method comprising increasing the magnitude of the amplitude of
the signals in a preselected set of spatial frequencies of the
image in the direction of the motion blur.

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 5, 12 through 16, and 18
through 20 under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness type double
patenting over claims 14 and 16 through 20 of McConica. Answer 3-4.1
The Examiner has rejected claims 6 through 11 under the judicially
created doctrine of obviousness type double patenting over claims 14, 16,
and 18 through 21 of McConica in view of Takayuki. Answer 4.
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 3, 6, and 7 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Lawton. Answer 5-6.
The Examiner has rejected claims 2, 8, and 9 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Lawton in view of Kondo. Answer 6-7.

1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Examiner’s Answer mailed on
October 16, 2009.
Appeal 2010-002437
Application 11/122,906
3

The Examiner has rejected claims 12 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Takayuki and Lawton. Answer 7-8.
The Examiner has rejected claims 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Takayuki, Lawton in view of Kondo. Answer 8-9.
ISSUES
Double Patenting Rejections
Appellant presents arguments directed to the Examiner’s double
patentable rejections on pages 5 through 6 of the Brief.2 These arguments
present us with the following issues:
With respect to claims 1 through 5, 12 through 16, and 18 through 20,
did the Examiner err in finding that the differences between the claims on
appeal and the claims of McConica are obvious?
With respect to claims 6 through 11, did the Examiner err in relying
upon the combination of McConica and Takayuki to reject the claims?

Art Rejections
Appellant’s arguments directed to the anticipation rejection based
upon Lawton present us with the issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding that Lawton teaches increasing the
magnitude of the signals of a set of spatial frequencies of the image in the
direction of the motion blur?
Appellant’s arguments directed to the obviousness rejections present
us with the same issue as discussed with respect to the anticipation rejection.

2 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief dated June 23, 2009.
Appeal 2010-002437
Application 11/122,906
4

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
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
Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusion reached by the
Examiner.
With respect to the obviousness double patenting rejection of claims 1
through 5, 12 through 16, and 18 through 20, in addition to the Examiner’s
statements in the Answer, we note that the claims of the current application
recite many of the same limitations; it is the dependencies of the claims that
show the different scope of the claims. For example, current claim 4 is very
similar to claim 19 of McConica in that they both recite steps of providing
image data, two steps of analyzing the image data to calculate figures of
merit of the image, calculating a ratio of the two figures of merit, comparing
the ratio to a value and reducing motion blur. Thus, Appellant has not
persuaded us that the differences between the claims on appeal and the
claims of McConica are obvious.
With respect to the obviousness double patenting rejection of claims 6
through 11, we concur with the Examiner and find no error in the
Examiner’s obviousness double patenting rejection because it relies on the
disclosure of Takayuki in conjunction with the claims of McConica.
With respect to the art rejections, we concur with the Examiner that
the teachings of Lawton support a finding that Lawton anticipated the claim
limitation of increasing the magnitude of the amplitudes of signals at spatial
frequencies in the direction of the motion blur.
Appeal 2010-002437
Application 11/122,906
5

CONCLUSION
The Examiner has not erred in rejecting 1 through 16 and 18 through
20.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 through 16 and 18 through 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

tj