Lee, Seung-yun

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 4, 2020

14883128 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 4, 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.
14/883,128 10/14/2015 Seung-yun Lee 0502-0399 1444
68103 7590 02/04/2020
Jefferson IP Law, LLP
1130 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 420
Washington, DC 20036
EXAMINER
GEBRIEL, SELAM T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2696
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/04/2020 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):
usdocketing@jeffersonip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SEUNG-YUN LEE
Appeal 2019-000443
Application 14/883,128
Technology Center 2600
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JUSTIN BUSCH, and
MICHAEL T. CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 30–32, 34–42, and 44–49.2, 3 Claims

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Samsung
Electronics Co., Ltd. See Appeal Br. 2.
2 We refer to Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.”), filed Oct. 14, 2015
(claiming benefit of KR 10-2010-0072480, filed July 27, 2010); Appeal
Brief (“Appeal Br.”), filed May 9, 2018; and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”), filed
Oct. 22, 2018. We also refer to the Examiner’s Final Office Action (“Final
Act.”), mailed Nov. 16, 2017; and Answer (“Ans.”) mailed Aug. 27, 2018.
3 The Examiner omits claim 32 from the “Disposition of Claims” in the Final
Office Action. See Final Act. 1. Claims 30–32, 34–42, and 44–49 are
Appeal 2019-000443
Application 14/883,128

2
1–29, 33, and 43 have been canceled. See Appeal Br. 2. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The invention relates “to a digital photographing method and
apparatus” (Spec. 1:11) for “[t]aking a series of consecutive photographs”
(Spec. 1:14). See Spec. 1:20–5:19; Abstract. Claims 30, 40, and 49 are
independent. Claim 30, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
30. A method for operating an electronic device
comprising:
identifying a first object from the sequence of images;
identifying a second object different than the first object
from the sequence of images;
identifying a first movement state corresponding to the
first object or a second movement state corresponding to the
second object;
determining, based at least in part on the first movement
state or the second movement state, that a specified condition is
met with respect to a proximity between the first object and the
second object;
generating an image capturing signal based on the
determining that a distance between the first object and the
second object is within a reference distance range; and
photographing an image in response to the generated
image capturing signal.
Appeal Br. 10 (Claims App.).

actually pending. See Final Act. 2; Appeal Br. 2. We find this omission to
be harmless error.
Appeal 2019-000443
Application 14/883,128

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Chen et al. (“Chen”) US 2009/0316044 A1 Dec. 24, 2009
Hung et al. (“Hung”) US 2009/0102935 A1 Apr. 23, 2009
Shimizu US 2008/0291285 A1 Nov. 27, 2008
REJECTION4
The Examiner rejects claims 30–32, 34–42, and 44–49 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chen, Hung, and Shimizu.
See Final Act. 2–14.
OPINION
Obviousness Rejection
The Examiner rejects independent claim 30 (as well as independent
claims 40 and 49, and dependent claims 31, 32, 34–39, 41 42, and 44–48)
over Chen, Hung, and Shimizu. See Final Act. 2–5; Ans. 16–17. Appellant
contends Chen, Hung, and Shimizu do not teach the disputed limitations of
claim 30. See Appeal Br. 5–9; Reply Br. 2–5. Specifically, Appellant
contends, inter alia, that Chen (as well as Hung and Shimizu) does not teach
identifying objects as well as movement states of the objects. See Appeal
Br. 5–9; Reply Br. 2–5. Appellant further contends:
Chen does not teach the use of motion vectors of objects only
motion vectors of blocks (Appeal Brief, page 7). The fact that
one can observe the moving object, emphasized above, does not

4 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125
Stat. 284 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103, e.g., to rename 35 U.S.C.
§ 103’s subsections. Because the present application has an effective filing
date (July 27, 2010) prior to the AIA’s effective date for applications (March
16, 2013), this decision refers 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appeal 2019-000443
Application 14/883,128

4
disclose or suggest that Appellant’s method for operating an
electronic device, as in claim 30, identif[ies] a first movement
state corresponding to the first object or a second movement state
corresponding to the second object . . . . It is respectfully
submitted that the Examiner confuses, an individual using
Chen’s device or viewing Chen FIG. 4, with the function of
Chen’s device, which is different.
Reply Br. 4.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner-cited portions of Chen (in
combination with Hung and Shimizu) do not describe a “method for
operating an electronic device” including “identifying a first object,”
“identifying a second object,” and “identifying a first movement state
corresponding to the first object or a second movement state corresponding
to the second object” as recited in claim 30 (Appeal Br. 10 (Claims App.)).
See Appeal Br. 5–9; Reply Br. 2–5. The Examiner-cited portions of Chen
(as well as Hung and Shimizu) describe determining motion vectors for
blocks of image data, but do not describe identifying objects and the
movement states thereof (the summed motion vector—see Spec. 17:4–15;
Fig. 8). See Final Act. 2–5; Ans. 16–17 (citing Chen ¶¶ 20–25, Fig. 4; Hung
¶¶ 35, 36, 41, Fig. 3; Shimizu ¶¶ 41–45, Figs. 1, 5). The Examiner
maintains that Chen’s Figure 4 describes identifying objects and movement
states. See Final Act 2–3; Ans. 16 (citing Chen ¶¶ 20–25; Fig. 4). However,
tracking objects using a panning camera (Chen ¶ 20) that are captured in
image frames, as shown in Chen’s Figure 4, is distinct from dividing an
image frame into blocks (as also shown in Chen’s Figure 4). See Chen Fig.
4, elements F0 and F2, 401–409, MB1-MB8. Nowhere does Chen describe
identifying objects within an image frame (or sequence of frames) and
determining movement of the objects. The Examiner does not sufficiently
Appeal 2019-000443
Application 14/883,128

5
explain how the cited portions of Chen (or of Hung and Shimizu—neither of
which are relied upon for the steps of identifying a first and second object) at
least suggest the disputed features.
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that
the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Chen, Hung, and
Shimizu render obvious Appellant’s claim 30. Independent claims 40 and
49 include limitations of commensurate scope. Claims 31, 32, 34–39, 41,
42, and 44–48 depend on and stand with claims 30 and 40, respectively.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, we determine that claims 30–32, 34–
42, and 44–49 are not obvious in view of the cited prior art. Appellant has
shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 30–32, 34–42, and 44–49
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We therefore do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 30–32, 34–42, and 44–49.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
30–32, 34–
42, 44–49
103(a) Chen, Hung, Shimizu None 30–32, 34–
42, 44–49
REVERSED