Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 3, 2020

15500663 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 3, 2020)

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.
15/500,663 01/31/2017 Robert L Mueller 84593335 6208
22879 7590 11/03/2020
HP Inc.
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
Fort Collins, CO 80528-9544
EXAMINER
DANIELS, ANTHONY J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2696
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/03/2020 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
jessica.pazdan@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 ROBERT L. MUELLER, VIJAYKUN NAYAK, SANTIAGO
GARCIA-REYERO VINAS, and BEN WYNNE
Appeal 2019-003440
Application 15/500,663
Technology Center 2600
Before MARC S. HOFF, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
MICHAEL T. CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1–15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Hewlett-Packard
Development Company, L.P. Appeal Brief 3, filed November 7, 2018
(Appeal Br.).
Appeal 2019-003440
Application 15/500,663

2
BACKGROUND
This patent application concerns “a projection capture system that
improves the interactive user experience working with real objects and
projected objects on a physical work surface.” Specification ¶ 8, filed
January 31, 2017. Claim 1 illustrates the claimed subject matter:
1. A projection capture system, comprising;
a camera to capture images of objects in a capture space;
and
a projector to illuminate the objects in the capture space
and to project images captured by the camera into a display
space, wherein the projector includes a flash mode for projecting
white light for illuminating the objects in the capture space
during capturing of images of the objects by the camera; and
a controller, including a processor, to adjust drive settings
to LEDs of the projector to achieve a predetermined white point
during the flash mode.
Appeal Br. 16.
REJECTIONS
Claims 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis
1, 3–5, 10, 12, 14,
15 103 Junuzovic,
2 Yamakose,3 Chen4
2 103 Junuzovic, Yamakose, Chen, Roth5
6–8 103 Junuzovic, Yamakose, Chen, Spaulding6

2 Junuzovic et al. (US 2012/0320157 A1; December 20, 2012).
3 Yamakose et al. (US 2010/0188562 A1; July 29, 2010).
4 Chen et al. (US 2010/0244701 A1; September 30, 2010).
5 Roth (US 2007/0001994 Al; January 4, 2007).
6 Spaulding et al. (US 5,805,213; September 8, 1998).
Appeal 2019-003440
Application 15/500,663

3
Claims 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis
9 103 Junuzovic, Yamakose, Chen, Morejon7
11 103 Junuzovic, Yamakose, Chen, Sciammarella8
13 103 Junuzovic, Yamakose, Chen, Roth, Spaulding
DISCUSSION
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections and Appellant’s
arguments, and Appellant has not persuaded us that the Examiner erred. As
consistent with the discussion below, we adopt the Examiner’s reasoning,
findings, and conclusions on pages 2–12 of the Final Office Action mailed
June 7, 2018 (Final Act.) and pages 3–4 of the Examiner’s Answer mailed
January 24, 2019 (Ans.).
Claim 1 recites “a controller, including a processor, to adjust drive
settings to LEDs of the projector to achieve a predetermined white point
during the flash mode.” Appeal Br. 16. For this limitation, the Examiner
found that Junuzovic “discloses an LED-based camera/projector that
projects images for display and projects white light when the camera
captures images of objects but is silent in regard to how the LEDs are driven
during the light projection mode.” Final Act. 3 (emphasis omitted). The
Examiner relied on Chen for the details missing from Junuzovic about how
LEDs are driven during light projection. See Final Act. 3. The Examiner
found that although Chen “only adjusts LED drive settings of [a] computer
backlight,” Chen’s method of using a controller to adjust the LED drive

7 Morejon et al. (US 2006/0274286 A1; December 7, 2006).
8 Sciammarella et al. (US 2003/0007135 A1; January 9, 2003).
Appeal 2019-003440
Application 15/500,663

4
settings to maintain a target white point can be used to drive the LEDs in
Junuzovic’s LED-based camera/projector. Final Act. 3, 5; see also Ans. 3–4.
The Examiner found that those of ordinary skill in the art would have been
motivated to combine Chen’s and Junuzovic’s teachings to arrive at the
claimed invention because they “would recognize the advantages of using
Chen’s LED drive setting method in Junuzovic’s” LED-based
camera/projector such as “white point consistency despite age and variations
in the ambient environment.” Final Act. 3.
Appellant contends that the Examiner has not shown that the
combination of Junuzovic and Chen teaches or suggests this limitation. See
Appeal Br. 6–8. Appellant focuses on Chen and argues that “Chen discusses
the backlight in a personal computer, and does not include any disclosure
regarding adjusting the drive settings to LEDs of a projector,” let alone
“during a flash mode of the projector.” Appeal Br. 7. Appellant also asserts
that Chen does not include “any disclosure . . . regarding achieving a
predetermined white point for illumination provided by a projector for image
capture.” Appeal Br. 7. Finally, Appellant contends that Chen “does not
include any disclosure that indicates that the techniques disclosed therein
could or should be applied to an RGB projector that provides illumination
for image capture during a flash mode.” Appeal Br. 10; see also Reply Brief
2–4, filed March 20, 2019 (making similar arguments).
Appellant has not persuaded us that the Examiner erred. Appellant’s
arguments that Chen must provide explicit disclosures about the claimed
subject matter run contrary to the Supreme Court’s “expansive and flexible
approach” to questions of obviousness. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 415 (2007). Under that approach, the Examiner was not required
Appeal 2019-003440
Application 15/500,663

5
to “seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the
challenged claim.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Instead, the Examiner could—and
did—determine that “if a technique has been used to improve one device,
and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would
improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious
unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
The Examiner found that those of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized that Chen’s method of using a controller to adjust the LED drive
settings of a computer backlight (a particular technique used to improve one
device) could be used to improve Junuzovic’s LED-based camera/projector
(a similar device) to achieve white point consistency despite age and
variations in the ambient environment (in the same way) and concluded that
the disputed limitation would have been obvious. See Final Act. 2–5; Ans.
3–4. Appellant has provided no persuasive evidence or reasoning that
suggests that applying Chen’s LED-driving method to Junuzovic’s LED-
based camera/projector would have been beyond the abilities of those of
ordinary skill in the art, that doing so would have led to a device that is
inoperable or lacked the benefits identified by the Examiner, or that the
proposed modification would have been nonobvious. See, e.g., Leapfrog
Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
(affirming a district court’s obviousness determination when the appellant
“present[ed] no evidence that the” proposed combination would have been
“uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” or
“represented an unobvious step over the prior art”).
Appellant’s arguments also ignore that “[a] person of ordinary skill is
. . . a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421.
Appeal 2019-003440
Application 15/500,663

6
Because a person of ordinary skill in the art is a person of ordinary
creativity, the Examiner was free to “take account of the inferences and
creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR,
550 U.S. at 418. Here, the Examiner recognized that those inferences and
creative steps would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to employ
Chen’s LED-driving method in Junuzovic’s LED-based camera/projector
when it was needed: while Junuzovic’s LED-based camera/projector was
lighting an object for image capture (“during the flash mode”) to ensure that
the device reached a target white point (“to achieve a predetermined white
point”). See Final Act. 2–5; Ans. 3–4. Appellant’s contentions that Chen
does not explicitly disclose the claimed subject matter do not persuasively
address the inferences and creative steps that those of ordinary skill in the art
would have employed.
For at least the above reasons, Appellant has not persuaded us that the
Examiner erred. We therefore sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Appellant presents similar arguments for claims 2–15, and we find these
arguments unpersuasive for the same reasons we find them unpersuasive for
claim 1. We thus also sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2–15.
CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–5, 10,
12, 14, 15 103
Junuzovic, Yamakose,
Chen
1, 3–5, 10,
12, 14, 15
2 103 Junuzovic, Yamakose, Chen, Roth 2
6–8 103 Junuzovic, Yamakose, Chen, Spaulding 6–8
Appeal 2019-003440
Application 15/500,663

7
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References/Basis Affirmed Reversed
9 103 Junuzovic, Yamakose, Chen, Morejon 9
11 103 Junuzovic, Yamakose, Chen, Sciammarella 11
13 103 Junuzovic, Yamakose, Chen, Roth, Spaulding 13
Overall
Outcome 1–15

No period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED