Ex Parte Venkatraman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 14, 2017

14053436 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 14, 2017)

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.
14/053,436 10/14/2013 Subramaniam Venkatraman 131388 (868297) 1368
15093 7590 03/16/2017
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton/Qualcomm
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 Peachtree Street
Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309
EXAMINER
TISSIRE, ABDELAAZIZ
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2662
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/16/2017 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):
ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
qcominst@kilpatricktownsend.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SUBRAMANIAM VENKATRAMAN and VICTOR KULIK
Appeal 2016-008709
Application 14/053,4361
Technology Center 2600
Before STEPHEN C. SIU, JOHN D. HAMANN, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-28, which are all the claims pending in this application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Qualcomm
Incorporated. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-008709
Application 14/053,436
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ application relates to taking and processing a series of
images using various focal lengths. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
appealed subject matter and reads as follows:
1. A method of image capture and processing, the method
comprising:
capturing a plurality of images in succession over a
period of time with a camera, wherein the capturing is triggered
by a user input;
varying a focal length of the camera during the period of
time such that each image of the plurality of images is captured
using a unique focal length;
aligning the plurality of images using motion sensor data
taken during the period of time;
processing, with a processing unit, the plurality of images
by:
dividing each image into a plurality of regions
based on features in one or more images of the plurality
of images, each region having a corresponding region in
each of the plurality of images;
calculating a level of contrast for each region of a
first set of corresponding regions;
comparing the levels of contrast for regions of the
first set of corresponding regions; and
determining a first image having a highest-level of
contrast in the first set of corresponding regions; and
causing a display to show the first image when one
of the first set of corresponding regions is selected.
The Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1-6, 8-14, 16-19, 21-24, and 26-28 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chan (US 2014/0125831 Al; May
2
Appeal 2016-008709
Application 14/053,436
8, 2014), Ozluturk (US 2005/0259888 Al; Nov. 24, 2005), and Tan (US
2014/0192076 Al; July 10, 2014). Final Act. 5-11.
Claims 7, 15, 20, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Chan, Ozluturk, Tan, and Yokohata (US 2008/0112644
Al; May 15, 2008). Final Act. 11-13.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
contentions the Examiner erred. We disagree with Appellants’ contentions.
Except as noted below, 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. We concur with the conclusions
reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following additional points.
The Examiner finds an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been
motivated to combine Chan, Ozluturk, and Tan because Tan’s content-based
image division would lighten Chan and Ozluturk’s image processing load.
Final Act. 8. In particular, the Examiner finds Tan teaches content-based
image division lightens the post-production processing, which reduces the
overall processing load. Ans. 5 (citing Tan 138).
Appellants argue the Examiner erred because an ordinarily skilled
artisan would not have been motivated to combine Chan, Ozluturk, and Tan.
App. Br. 6-9; Reply Br. 2-5. In particular, Appellants argue the Examiner
failed to provide any evidence or common sense reasoning to support the
finding that combining the references would lighten the processing load of
the image processing apparatus. App. Br. 7. Appellants argue the Examiner
improperly relies on Tan’s teaching that is limited to lightening the
3
Appeal 2016-008709
Application 14/053,436
processing load for Tan’s specific image decomposition algorithm.
App. Br. 8.
Appellants have not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner
finds, and we agree, Tan teaches content-based image division may provide
optimal adaptation to image content for post-processing. Ans. 5 (citing Tan
138). Although Tan’s teaching is directed to its image decomposition
algorithm, we agree with the Examiner that an ordinarily skilled artisan
would understand that this advantage may apply to other post-processing, as
well.
In addition, Chan teaches the user may want to select image areas
based on the content in the images. Chan 137. The Examiner’s proposed
combination would allow the user to select an image feature (e.g., the
mountain in Chan’s Fig. 4), and the selected region would be displayed with
the highest available contrast. Final Act. 7-8. Adding Tan’s content-based
image division would allow the image regions to correspond directly to the
user-selected image features, potentially further reducing the image
processing load by avoiding processing regions of the image outside of the
desired feature area.
On this record, we, therefore, sustain the rejection of claim 1 as
unpatentable over Chan, Ozluturk, and Tan. We also sustain the rejections
of independent claims 10, 17, and 22, which were argued for the same
reasons (App. Br. 9), and dependent claims 2-9, 11-16, 18-21, and 23-28,
which were not argued separately from their respective independent claims
(id.).
4
Appeal 2016-008709
Application 14/053,436
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-28.
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
5