MASUDA, Kensuke et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 2, 2020

14987111 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 2, 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.
14/987,111 01/04/2016 Kensuke MASUDA 12199US03CON 9519
154930 7590 01/02/2020
XSENSUS LLP
200 Daingerfield Road
Suite 201
Alexandria, VA 22314
EXAMINER
KHALID, OMER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2422
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/02/2020 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):
Arlene.Hudgens@Xsensus.com
Faith.Baggett@xsensus.com
anaquadocketing@Xsensus.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte KENSUKE MASUDA, NORIYUKI TERAO, YOSHIAKI IRINO,
TOMONORI TANAKA, NOZOMI IMAE, TORU HARADA, HIROKAZU
TAKENAKA, HIDEAKI YAMAMOTO, SATOSHI SAWAGUCHI, and
HIROYUKI SATOH
________________

Appeal 2018-004734
Application 14/987,111
Technology Center 2400
________________

Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
RUSSELL E. CASS, Administrative Patent Judges.

CASS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 2–4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appeal Br. 3–4.2 An
oral hearing was held on December 9, 2019. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant lists RICOH Company, Ltd. as the real party in
interest. Appeal Brief filed December 4, 2017 (“Appeal Br.”) 1.
2 Throughout this Opinion, we refer to the above-noted Appeal Brief, as well
as the following documents for their respective details: the Final Action
mailed June 16, 2017 (“Final Act.”); the Examiner’s Answer mailed March
8, 2018 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief filed April 3, 2018 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2018-004734
Application 14/987,111

2
BACKGROUND
The present invention relates to an optical system with lenses for use
in an imaging system. Spec. ¶ 1. The Specification explains that imaging
systems exist for capturing images in all directions at one time using a
plurality of wide-angle lenses. Id. ¶ 2. According to the Specification, a
wide angle lens for such an imaging system often has different magnification
at the center of the lens as compared to the magnification at the edge
portions of the lens. Id. In such systems, it is necessary to increase the
magnification in the edge portion of the lens so that it is higher than at the
center of the lens, in order to compensate for image quality deterioration in
the edge portion. Id. ¶ 3. However, the Specification explains, when the
imaging magnification is increased in the edge portions, the entire length of
the lens is likely to increase. Id. ¶ 4.
According to the Specification, the invention seeks to address this
perceived problem by providing an optical system comprising a central
portion and a circumferential portion. Id. ¶ 7. The central portion has a
magnification per unit angle of view that increases from the center to the
outside portion at a particular rate of increase. Id. The circumferential
portion outside the central portion has a magnification per unit of view that
increases from the central portion to an outside portion at an increase rate
smaller than the increase rate of the central portion. Id. According to the
Specification, this approach allows the imaging optical system to be easily
designed and manufactured at a low cost while ensuring an adequate
thickness necessary for processing. Id. ¶ 110.
Appeal 2018-004734
Application 14/987,111

3
Claim 2 is illustrative of the claims at issue:
2. An optical system, comprising:
a plurality of lenses,
wherein:
a first area of an angle of view of the optical system,
which is an area where a subject image incident on each
of the lenses is not overlapped, includes a magnification
per unit angle of view which increases with an angle of
view,
a second area of an angle of view which is outside the
first area includes a magnification per unit angle of
view which changes with the angle of view with a rate
of increase of the magnification per unit angle of view
being reduced as the angle of view increases, and
the second area is an area where images, from two
lenses of the plurality of lenses, overlap each other.
Appeal Br. 6 (Claims Appendix).

THE EXAMINER’S REJECTION AND APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS
The prior art relied on by the Examiner is set forth in the following
table:
Name Reference Date
McCall US 2009/0040291 A1 Feb. 12, 2009
Ortiz US 2010/0131533 A1 May 27, 2010

Final Act. 7–9.
In the Final Office Action, the Examiner rejected claims 2–4 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ortiz in view of McCall. Id.
Appeal 2018-004734
Application 14/987,111

4
With respect to claim 2, the Examiner relies on Figure 12B of Ortiz to teach
the claimed “first area of an angle of view” and “second area of an angle of
view.” Final Act. 8. The Examiner finds that Figure 12B of Ortiz teaches “a
magnification per unit angle of view which changes with the angle of view
with a rate of increase of the magnification per unit angle of view being
reduced as the angle of view increases.” Id. The Examiner finds that “Ortiz
does not explicitly disclose a magnification per unit angle of view [that]
increases with an angle of view,” but McCall “teaches a magnification per
unit angle of view [that] increases with an angle of view.” Id. (citing
McCall ¶¶ 86, 112).
Appellant argues that “[n]either Figure 12B or the description in Ortiz
discloses or suggests anything related to ‘a rate of increase of the
magnification per unit angle of view,’ as claimed.” Appeal Br. 4. Appellant
further contends that the prior art does not “identify first and second areas,
as claimed.” Id. As to McCall, Appellant argues that McCall does not
disclose “what happens to the rate of increase of the magnification per unit
angle of view when the field of view is great[er] than 180º,” and does not
“explain that there are any different lens properties for sections of a lens
where the field of view is greater than 180º.” Id.
In the Answer, the Examiner acknowledges that “[t]he references do
not explicitly teach a ‘rate of increase of the magnification per unit angle of
view,’” but finds that McCall teaches to “magnify or scale the image (zoom
in and out) electronically.” Ans. 5 (citing McCall ¶¶ 26, 78). The Examiner
further determines that a “magnification per unit angle of view is an abstract
way of saying that the magnification is non-linear, non-constant, hence non-
uniform, which is taught in McCall.” Id. at 6.
Appeal 2018-004734
Application 14/987,111

5
Appellant responds that the Examiner never identifies the claimed
“first” and “second” areas in the prior art. Reply Br. 1. As to Ortiz,
Appellant argues that the Examiner does not explain “exactly what part of
Figure 12B constitutes the first area and what part constitutes the second
area.” Id. Appellant also argues the claimed increase in the magnification
per unit angle of view is a property of the lens, and McCall’s teaching that
the magnification can be modified is unrelated to the structure of the lens
itself. Id. at 2–3.

ANALYSIS
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not established that
the cited references reasonably teach or suggest the claimed “first” and
“second” areas, wherein the second area is outside of the first area and
includes a “magnification per unit angle of view which changes with the
angle of view with a rate of increase of the magnification per unit angle of
view being reduced as the angle of view increases.”
As to Ortiz, the Examiner has not established that Figure 12B shows
first and second regions at all, much less a second region in which the rate of
increase of the magnification per unit angle of view is reduced as the angle
of view increases. Figure 12B, reproduced below, shows an imaging device
that captures a single large image from which areas that are a subset of the
larger image may be derived:
Appeal 2018-004734
Application 14/987,111

6

Figure 12B shows a device used to capture one or more views a an workflow
structure that relies on an imaging device that captures a single large image
view from which view areas that are a subset of the larger image view may
be derived. Ortiz, Fig. 12B, ¶ 89.
More specifically, Ortiz discloses that in Figure 12B, “a single sensor
captures 2 opposing 180 degree views through a fisheye lens.” Ortiz ¶ 89.
The Examiner, however, has not introduced sufficient evidence to establish
that this fisheye lens would include the claimed two regions, including a
second region in which the rate of increase of the magnification per unit
angle of view is reduced as the angle of view increases. The Examiner,
therefore, fails to establish that Ortiz teaches this limitation.
As to McCall, the Examiner also fails to present sufficient evidence to
support a conclusion that the reference teaches “first” and “second” areas
with the claimed properties. See Final Act. 8; Ans. 5–6; McCall ¶¶ 86, 112.
The Examiner points to portions of the reference that disclose zooming,
panning, and tilting the image, but does not adequately demonstrate that the
ability to zoom, pan, and tilt requires a lens with a second area in which the
Appeal 2018-004734
Application 14/987,111

7
rate of increase of the magnification per unit angle of view is reduced as the
angle of view increases. Id.
Therefore, we find that the Examiner has failed to establish that Ortiz
and McCall teach the “first” and “second” areas as recited in claim 2.
Consequently, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2. We also
reverse the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 3 and 4, which are
dependent on claim 2.

CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2–4 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
2–4 103 Ortiz, McCall 2–4

REVERSED