15228307 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 16, 2020)

Motorola Mobility LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 16, 2020

15228307 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 16, 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. 15/228,307 08/04/2016 Hai Long 60043/MM02061-US-NP 9037 138858 7590 09/16/2020 Motorola/ McKinney Phillips LLC 1440 W. Taylor St. Suite 749 Chicago, IL 60607 EXAMINER CUTLER, ALBERT H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2696 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/16/2020 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): docketing.mobility@motorola.com pipp@mckinneyphillips.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HAI LONG and LEI PENG Appeal 2019-003821 Application 15/228,307 Technology Center 2600 Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, ERIC B. CHEN, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–8, 10–17, 19, and 20, which are all of the claims pending in the application. Claims 9 and 18 were previously canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Motorola Mobility LLC as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2019-003821 Application 15/228,307 2 TECHNOLOGY The application relates to “enabling a selective partial view enlargement on a display screen of a portable electronic communication device.” Spec. ¶ 1. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below with certain limitations at issue emphasized: 1. An image capture device comprising: camera hardware to generate image data, the camera hardware including at least one image capture element, at least one lens and at least one aperture; a device display linked to the camera hardware to display the generated image data, creating a displayed image; a camera memory medium configured to record data representing an image corresponding to the generated image data; and a non-volatile device memory medium having stored therein instructions for instantiating a camera application, the camera application being configured to receive a user request to enlarge a selected portion of the displayed image, and in response to modify the recorded image data such that the image corresponding to the modified recorded image contains an enlarged view of the selected portion, and write the modified recorded image data to the device display, and to write the modified recorded image data to the non-volatile device memory medium upon receiving a user selection to take a picture. Appeal 2019-003821 Application 15/228,307 3 REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following prior art references: Name Number Date Anderson US 5,973,734 Oct. 26, 1999 Hiratsuka US 2008/0297638 A1 Dec. 4, 2008 Maniwa US 2009/0185064 A1 July 23, 2009 Shida US 2007/0097226 A1 May 3, 2007 Stec US 2011/0141300 A1 June 16, 2011 Suzuki US 2010/0013977 A1 Jan. 21, 2010 Yamazaki US 2017/0034421 A1 Feb. 2, 2017 REJECTIONS The Examiner makes the following rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103: Claims References Final Act. 1–5, 14–16, 19 Maniwa, Suzuki, Shida 4 6, 17 Maniwa, Suzuki, Shida, Yamazaki 15 7 Maniwa, Suzuki, Shida, Hiratsuka 14 8, 10, 11 Maniwa, Suzuki 11 12 Maniwa, Suzuki, Yamazaki 17 13 Maniwa, Suzuki, Anderson 18 20 Maniwa, Suzuki, Shida, Stec 19 ISSUE Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Maniwa and Suzuki teaches or suggests “to write the modified recorded image data to the non-volatile device memory medium upon receiving a user selection to take a picture,” as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS Appellant argues that “every pending claim in the instant application requires that the image with the enlarged portion must be captured” and that “the Examiner has expressly admitted that in his combination, the image Appeal 2019-003821 Application 15/228,307 4 with an enlarged portion ‘is not captured’!” Appeal Br. 10–11 (quoting Final Act. 3). This argument is not persuasive. As the Examiner points out, claim 1 recites to “write” the modified recorded image data, not to “capture” it. Ans. 21. Here, Suzuki teaches writing the modified recorded image data. Suzuki ¶ 71 (“The controlling unit 12 creates an overlapped image in which the image generated by the image-capturing unit 10 and the above-stated tracking object checking image are overlapped and records it to the recording unit 15.” (emphasis added)). Further, Appellant’s partial quotation of the Examiner is taken out of context. In context, the Examiner correctly explains that the full image is obtained with an image sensor (i.e., “captured”), then the enlarged portion is generated from that full image. Ans. 20–21; Final Act. 3 (“the image with the enlarged portion taught by Suzuki is not captured, but rather is created by altering the image generated (i.e. captured) by the image-capturing unit”). Appellant also argues that Suzuki’s “overlapped” image contains “something that was never in the actual image, e.g., a thumbnail of a tracked object like a plane” rather than “an enlarged portion of the actual image.” Reply Br. 2. However, Suzuki expressly teaches that “[t]he tracking object checking image is an image partially enlarging a subject,” such as by “cutting out a part of the through image and digitally enlarging it.” Suzuki ¶ 29. Figures 4 through 6 of Suzuki show examples enlarging a portion of the full image. Appellant further argues “if we were to modify Maniwa to capture (write to nonvolatile memory) an image that still includes the enlarged portion shown in the focus-check preview, the now-permanent enlarged Appeal 2019-003821 Application 15/228,307 5 portion would obscure other portions of the image that were meant to be captured” and thereby “defeat the very purpose of Maniwa, i.e., to check an enlarged sample from the image to determine a focus state for the entire image!” Appeal Br. 10 (citing only Maniwa ¶ 8). This argument is not persuasive. First, we are not persuaded based upon Appellant’s sole citation that Maniwa’s intended purpose or principle of operation is limited to keeping an “entire image.” See Maniwa ¶ 8. Second, as the Examiner correctly points out, “the display of the modified image (i.e. in step 104 . . . ) is separate from the image capture and recording of the regular image (i.e. in steps 108-110 . . . )” and therefore “[t]he combination with Suzuki only involves storing the modified image of step 104 of Maniwa, and has no impact on storing the captured regular image of step 108 of Maniwa.” Ans. 20 (discussing Maniwa Fig. 3). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claim 1, and claims 2–8, 10–17, 19, 20, which Appellant argues are patentable for similar reasons. See Appeal Br. 11–12; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appeal 2019-003821 Application 15/228,307 6 OUTCOME The following table summarizes the outcome of each rejection: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed 1–5, 14–16, 19 103 Maniwa, Suzuki, Shida 1–5, 14–16, 19 8, 10, 11 103 Maniwa, Suzuki 8, 10, 11 7 103 Maniwa, Suzuki, Shida, Hiratsuka 7 6, 17 103 Maniwa, Suzuki, Shida, Yamazaki 6, 17 12 103 Maniwa, Suzuki, Yamazaki 12 13 103 Maniwa, Suzuki, Anderson 13 20 103 Maniwa, Suzuki, Shida, Stec 20 OVERALL 1–8, 10–17, 19, 20 TIME TO RESPOND No time 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. § 1.36(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED