Ex Parte Wyles et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 27, 2016

13270557 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/270,557 10/11/2011 Richard H. Wyles
33164 7590 10/31/2016
RAYTHEON COMPANY
C/O DALY, CROWLEY, MOFFORD & DURKEE, LLP
354A TURNPIKE STREET
SUITE 301A
CANTON, MA 02021
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.
RTN-637PUS(ll-1639-US-NP) 5154
EXAMINER
ZHOU, ZHIHAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2482
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/31/2016 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):
docketing@dc-m.com
amk@dc-m.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RICHARD H. WYLES and JAMES F. ASBROCK
Appeal2015-006857 1
Application 13/270,557
Technology Center 2400
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Appellants identify Raytheon Company as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2015-006857
Application 13/270,557
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-20, which are all the pending claims.
Appeal Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
BACKGROUND
A. The Invention
Appellants' invention is directed to a method and apparatus that
receives data from a single sensor and provides "high-resolution imagery at
a first frame rate ... and lower-resolution imagery at a second frame rate,
which is higher than the first rate." Abstract. Claims 1 and 1 7 are
representative and reproduced below, with emphasis added to the disputed
elements:
1. A method of processing data from a sensor, comprising:
processing data from a first pixel in a plurality of pixels at
a first frequency by performing subframe averaging of the first
pixel data over a first number of subframes to generate a first data
stream at a first frame rate and a first resolution;
outputting the first data stream for viewing by a user;
aggregating data from at least two neighboring pixels to
form aggregate pixel data which is read out at a subframe rate;
and
integrating the aggregate pixel data and outputting the
integrated aggregate pixel data at a second frequency higher
than the first frequency to generate a second data stream
simultaneously with the first data stream, the second data
stream having a second resolution less than the first resolution
and a second frame rate greater than the first frame rate.
2
Appeal2015-006857
Application 13/270,557
17. A sensor system including a sensor to obtain data,
compnsmg:
a first means to process data from a first pixel in a
plurality of pixels to generate a first data stream at a first frame
rate and a first resolution;
a second means to aggregate data from at least two
neighboring pixels to form aggregate pixel data at a subframe
rate to generate a second data stream having a second
resolution less than the first resolution and a second frame rate
greater than the first frame rate.
Appeal Br. 19, 22. (Claims App.).
B. The Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejects claims 17 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Bub (Gil Bub et al., Temporal Pixel Multiplexing for
Simultaneous High-speed, High-resolution Imaging, NATURE METHODS 7(3)
209-211 (2010)). Ans. 3.2
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, and 14 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bub, in view of Pinch
(US 6,885,002 B 1; Apr. 26, 2005). Ans. 5.
The Examiner rejects claims 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, and 16 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bub, in view of Pinch, and further
in view of Snider (US 2007/0125951 Al; June 7, 2007). Ans. 9.
The Examiner rejects claims 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bub, in view of Finch, and further in view of Sugiyama
(US 2007 /0239587 Al; Oct. 26, 2006). Ans. 11.
2 The Examiner also cited Wikipedia (Wikipedia- Charge-coupled device,
https://web.archive.org/web/201104132l1206/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C
harge-coupled_device) as evidence that various features "are well-known to
be implemented in a charge-coupled device." Ans. 13; see id. at 15.
3
Appeal2015-006857
Application 13/270,557
A. Claims 1 7 and 18
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue Bub fails to teach "a second means to aggregate data
from at least two neighboring pixels to form aggregate pixel data at a
subframe rate to generate a second data stream having a second resolution
less than the first resolution and a second frame rate greater than the first
frame rate," as recited in independent claim 17. See Appeal Br. 7-10; see
also Reply Br. 4---6. 3 As argued by Appellants, the Examiner erred in
finding Bub's charge-coupled device ("CCD") equivalent to the claimed
"second means" because the way Appellants' claimed invention performs
the recited function, as described in paragraph 25 of Appellants'
Specification and as illustrated in Figure 4 of Appellants' drawings, is
substantially different from the way Bub's CCD performs the recited
function. See Appeal Br. 8-10 (citing Spec. i-f 25, Fig. 4); see also Reply
Br. 4--6.
We are persuaded that the Examiner erred. To teach a means-plus-
function limitation, the prior art must disclose structure that performs the
identical function recited in the means-plus-function limitation, and does so
with structure that is the same or equivalent to the corresponding structure of
the means-plus-function limitation. Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int'!, Inc.,
582 F.3d 1288, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2009). "[T]wo structures may be
3 Appellants also argue that Bub fails to teach "a first means to process data
from a first pixel in a plurality of pixels to generate a first data stream at a
first frame rate and a first resolution," as recited in claim 17. See Appeal
Br. 6-7; see also Reply Br. 2-3. Appellants also separately dispute the
rejection of claim 18. See Appeal Br. 11-12; see also Reply Br. 6-7. We do
not reach these arguments because the identified issue is dispositive of the
appeal with respect to claims 17-18.
4
Appeal2015-006857
Application 13/270,557
'equivalent' for purposes of section 112, paragraph 6 if they perform the
identical function, in substantially the same way, with substantially the same
result." Kemco Sales, Inc. v. Control Papers Co., 208 F.3d 1352, 1364 (Fed.
Cir. 2000). Although we agree with the Examiner that Bub's CCD and the
claimed "second means" perform identical functions, we agree with
Appellants that the Examiner failed to show Bub's CCD performs the
claimed function in substantially the same way as Appellants' claimed
invention. Specifically, we agree with Appellants that Bub's CCD utilizes a
mirror array (i.e., pixel level shutter array) to cause individual CCD pixels to
sequentially capture portions of a scene and further utilizes post-processing
software to extract and group n subframes from co-exposed pixels, whereas
Appellants' circuit 404 (i.e., the corresponding "second means" structure in
Appellants' Specification, as found by the Examiner) receives pixel data
from a photodetector and aggregates the received pixel data from at least
two neighboring pixels before pixel data is processed utilizing an integration
capacitor. See Appeal Br. 9-10 (citing Bub, 1, 3-5; Spec. i-f 25, Fig. 4).
Thus, we agree with Appellants the Examiner has not shown Bub's CCD
teaches the claimed "second means."
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 17 or dependent claim 18.
B. Claims 1-16, 19, and 20
Appellants argue Bub fails to teach:
integrating the aggregate pixel data and outputting the integrated
aggregate pixel data at a second frequency higher than the first
frequency to generate a second data stream simultaneously with
the first data stream, the second data stream having a second
5
Appeal2015-006857
Application 13/270,557
resolution less than the first resolution and a second frame rate
greater than the first frame rate,
as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly recited in independent claim
9. See Appeal Br. 14--16; see also Reply Br. 7-8. As argued by Appellants,
Bub's post-processing of received pixel data fails to teach integrating
aggregate pixel data because the post-processing is performed after
simultaneous capture of high-resolution pixel data and high-frame-rate pixel
data. See Appeal Br. 14--15.
We are persuaded the Examiner erred. We agree with Appellants that
Bub teaches the CCD extracting and arranging subframe pixel data, but fails
to teach the CCD integrating the aggregate data. See Appeal Br. 14--15
(citing Bub, 5). Instead, Bub teaches each pixel data is integrated
individually before the subframe pixel data is extracted and arranged. See
Bub, 7.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 1. We also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 9, which recites substantially similar limitations as claim
1, or dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, 19, and 20.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 17 and 18 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b ). We also reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-
16, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
6