QUALCOMM Incorporated

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 13, 2021

2020001161 (P.T.A.B. May. 13, 2021)

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.
15/342,912 11/03/2016 Bijan Forutanpour 1414-272US01/162862 6229
23696 7590 05/13/2021
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED
5775 MOREHOUSE DR.
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
EXAMINER
LE, PETER D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2488
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/13/2021 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):
us-docketing@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BIJAN FORUTANPOUR, STEPHEN MICHAEL VERRALL,
KALIN MITKOV ATANASSOV, and
ALBRECHT JOHANNES LINDNER

Appeal 2020-001161
Application 15/342,912
Technology Center 2400

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JASON V. MORGAN, and
JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–28, all of the claims pending.2 Claims App.
(Appeal Br. 19–27). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We refer to the Specification, filed Nov. 3, 2016 (“Spec.”); the Final Office
Action, mailed Jan. 28, 2019 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief, filed June 28,
2019 (“Appeal Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed Sept. 30, 2019
(“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief, filed Nov. 26, 2019.
2 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a).
Appellant identifies Qualcomm Incorporated, as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-001161
Application 15/342,912

2
II. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter relates to mobile device (10) using color
camera (8) and depth camera (12) for generating and enhancing depth map
images. Spec. ¶ 1. Figure 1, reproduced below, is useful for understanding
the claimed subject matter:

Figure 1 above illustrates mobile device (10) containing color camera (8)
including linear polarization unit (LPU 32), depth camera (12), and camera
processor (14) for enhancing depth map images. Id. ¶ 21.

Claims 1, 10, 19, and 28 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below
with disputed limitations emphasized, is illustrative:
A handheld mobile device configured to process a depth map
image, the handheld mobile device comprising:
a depth camera of the handheld mobile device configured to
capture a depth map image of a scene;
a camera including a linear polarization unit configured to
linearly polarize light entering into the camera of the handheld mobile
Appeal 2020-001161
Application 15/342,912

3
device, the camera configured to rotate the linear polarization unit
during capture of the scene to generate a sequence of linearly
polarized images of the scene having different polarization
orientations; and
a processor configured to:
perform image registration with respect to the sequence
of linearly polarized images to generate a sequence of aligned
linearly polarized images; and
generate an enhanced depth map image based on the
depth map image and the sequence of aligned linearly polarized
images.
Appeal Br. 19 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).
III. REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following references.3
Name Reference Date
Kamath US 2013/0321668 A1 Dec. 5, 2013
Bhowmick US 2015/0371396 A1 Dec. 24, 2015
Greenway US 2016/0088238 A1 Mar. 24, 2016
Kadambi US 2016/0261844 A1 Sept. 8, 2016
IV. REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 1–28 as follows:
Claims 1, 2, 7–11, 16–20, and 25–28 stand rejected as obvious under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combined teachings of Kadambi and Kamath. Final
Act. 3–8.
Claims 3, 4, 6, 12, 13, 15, 21, 22, and 24 stand rejected as obvious
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combined teachings of Kadambi, Kamath,
and Greenway. Final Act. 8–13.

3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.
Appeal 2020-001161
Application 15/342,912

4
Claims 5, 14, and 23 stand rejected as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over the combined teachings of Kadambi, Kamath, and Bhowmick. Final
Act. 13–15.
V. ANALYSIS
Appellant argues, inter alia, that the Examiner errs in finding that the
combination of Kadambi and Kamath teaches or suggests a camera
configured to rotate the LPU during capture of a scene, as recited in
independent claim 1. Appeal Br. 7. In particular, Appellant argues that
Kadambi’s disclosure of a camera coupled to a polarizer via a protractor
teaches the polarizer is manually rotated, and not by a camera configured to
perform such function. Id. at 8 (citing Kadambi ¶ 54); Reply Br. 5.
In response, the Examiner finds the following:
A. The Kadambi’s disclosure in para. 0054 as mentioned-
above is construed to be the following: “the polarizer filter 103
on a protractor is integrated with the camera 102 as a single
structure” [Fig. 1A; para. 0007, 0043: []in some cases, this
single camera is housed in a handheld device, such as a
smartphone ... In some other cases, a single polarized camera
employs focus cues to capture both depth and polarization
information. In some other cases, a single polarized camera is
moved around the scene to capture depth (e.g., Structure from
Motion) and polarization information]. Therefore, it is an
error to allege that Kadambi teaches the camera not in
contact with polarizer in light of Kadambi’s disclosures [Fig.
1A, para. 0007].

B. To avoid camera shake, the structure is mounted on a
tripod ‘104’ [Fig. 1A, para. 0054] for improvement. Note:
The camera shake or movement is not a requirement or a
parameter in the invention claimed in claim 1 and Kadambi’s
embodiments. Since Kadambi also discloses “a single
polarized camera” [para. 0007] and “rotating the polarizer
Appeal 2020-001161
Application 15/342,912

5
103” [Fig. 1A, para. 0054], a person of ordinary skill in the arts
in view of Kadambi [para. 0007] and Kamath [para. 0030]
knows how to incorporate the rotating polarizer 103 within
the camera. Furthermore, it is an error to allege that Kamath
[para. 0030] discloses the polarizing filters as a film which
are fixed because the polarizing filters as a film are Appellant’s
interpretation, not taught by Kamath. Therefore, it is obvious
for a person of ordinary skill in the arts to incorporate “the
rotating polarizer 103[”] in “a single polarized camera” [para.
0007].

Ans. 21–22.

Appellant’s arguments are persuasive of reversible Examiner error.
As noted above, the disputed claim limitation recites a camera
“configured to” rotate the LPU during capture of a scene. We begin our
analysis by giving the term “configured to” its broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with Appellant’s disclosure. As explained in In re
Morris:
[T]he PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims the
broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage
as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art,
taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of
definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written
description contained in the applicant’s specification.
In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re Zletz, 893
F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“[C]laims must be interpreted as broadly as
their terms reasonably allow.”). Our reviewing court further states, “the
‘ordinary meaning’ of a claim term is its meaning to the ordinary artisan
after reading the entire patent.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1321
(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). In particular, the Specification recites the
following:
Appeal 2020-001161
Application 15/342,912

6
Color camera 8 may also include a motor 34 configured to
rotate LPU 32. Color camera 8 may operate motor 34 such that
rotation of LPU 32 is synchronized with the frame capture rate
of the camera. In some instances, rather than synchronize
rotation of LPU 32 to the frame capture rate, camera processor
14 may determine the rotation angle at the time of frame
capture.

Spec. ¶ 45 (emphasis added).

Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent with the
Specification, we construe the disputed claim limitation to require that the
camera be capable of rotating the LPU during capture.
Kadambi relates to a 3D imaging system implemented as a single
polarized camera, housed in a handheld device (e.g., a smartphone),
employing focus cues to capture both depth and polarization image
information. Kadambi ¶ 7. Alternatively, Kadambi discloses implementing
the 3D imaging system as including a depth camera, a digital camera
coupled to a polarizer filter via a protractor wherein the cameras are rigidly
fixed on a tripod. Id. ¶¶ 43, 59, Fig. 1A. In particular, Kadambi discloses
mounting the polarizer filter on a protractor placed in front of the camera
lens to avoid camera shake when rotating the polarizer filter. Id. ¶ 54.
We do not agree with the Examiner that incorporating Kadambi’s
rotatable polarizer filter into the single polarized camera teaches or suggests
the disputed claim limitation as construed above. Ans. 22. Although
Kadambi discloses that the polarizer filter is rotatable, it is silent as to
whether the digital camera is capable of performing such rotation. Further,
the proposed combination of Kadambi’s two disparate embodiments would
at best result in the hand-held user device having a total of three (3) cameras
Appeal 2020-001161
Application 15/342,912

7
including the digital camera having placed in front thereof a rotatable
polarizer filter supported by the protractor. Still, the Examiner has not
accounted for how the polarized camera or the digital camera would be
configured to rotate the polarized filter. Furthermore, as persuasively argued
by Appellant, “[r]eplacing the DSLR and the depth camera with a single
camera does not change how the polarizer is mounted.” Reply Br. 5. That is,
even if the polarized camera were replaced with the digital camera coupled
to the polarizer filter, we find insufficient evidence on this record that the
digital camera would be able to rotate the polarizer filter. Because the
Examiner fails to establish on the record before us how the rigidly fixed
cameras or the polarized camera is configured to rotate the polarizer filter,
we agree with Appellant that the proposed combination does not teach or
suggest the disputed claim limitations. Id.
Because Appellant shows at least one reversible error in the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, we do not reach
Appellant’s remaining arguments. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1. Likewise, we do
not sustain the rejections of dependent claims 2–28, which also recite the
disputed limitations.
VI. CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims
1–28.
VII. DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:

Appeal 2020-001161
Application 15/342,912

8
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§ Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 7–11,
16–20, 25–
28
103 Kadambi, Kamath
1, 2, 7–11,
16–20, 25–
28
3, 4, 6, 12,
13, 15, 21,
22, 24
103 Kadambi, Kamath, Greenway
3, 4, 6, 12,
13, 15, 21,
22, 24
5, 14, 23 103 Kadambi, Kamath, Bhowmick 5, 14, 23
Overall
Outcome 1–28

REVERSED