Sony Corporation et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 5, 2020

14823501 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 5, 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.
14/823,501 08/11/2015 Junichi KOSAKA 10153US03CON 2584
154930 7590 03/05/2020
XSENSUS LLP
200 Daingerfield Road
Suite 201
Alexandria, VA 22314
EXAMINER
MOREHEAD III, JOHN H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2699
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/05/2020 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):
Faith.Baggett@xsensus.com
Sandy.Miles@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 JUNICHI KOSAKA1
________________

Appeal 2018-008304
Application 14/823,501
Technology Center 2600
________________

Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, JASON V. MORGAN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1–20, which constitute all claims pending in this
application. Appeal Br. 5.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).3
We reverse.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Sony Mobile Communications Inc. as
the real party in interest. Appeal Brief filed February 28, 2018 (“Appeal
Br.”) 1.
2 We refer to the above mentioned Appeal Brief, as well as the following
documents for their respective details: the Final Action mailed June 30,
2017 (“Final Act.”); the Examiner’s Answer mailed June 14, 2018 (“Ans.”);
and the Reply Brief filed August 14, 2018 (“Reply Br.”).
3 Oral argument was held February 26, 2020. The transcript will be entered
into the record in due course.
Appeal 2018-008304
Application 14/823,501
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant describes the present invention as follows:
An information processing apparatus that includes a
camera unit including an imaging sensor that captures an image;
a display that displays an image; 0and a processor that: clips an
image region having a size corresponding to a photography zoom
power from an image captured by the camera unit; adjusts a
clipping position at a time of clipping the image region from the
image; and controls the display to display the clipped image
region on the display.
Abstract.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the appealed
claims:
1. An information processing apparatus comprising:
a display that displays an image captured by a camera unit
including an image sensor; and
circuitry configured to
control the camera unit to clip an image region
having a size corresponding to a photography zoom power
from the image captured by the camera unit;
detect a user input, wherein the user input is a single
continuous dragging gesture performed by the user's
finger;
control the camera unit to adjust center coordinates
of a clipping position at a time of clipping the image region
from the image without changing the photography zoom
power by multiplying a parameter indicative of a
movement of the user input by a predetermined scale
factor; and
control the display to display the clipped image
region on the display.

Appeal 2018-008304
Application 14/823,501
3
THE REFERENCES
The Examiner bases the prior-art rejections on the following
references:
Name Reference Date
Yata 2010/0098397 Al Apr. 22, 2010
Yokohata 2010/0157105 Al June 24, 2010
Kim et al. 2010/0173678 Al July 8, 2010
Kojima et al. 2011/0019239 Al Jan. 27, 2011
Coddington 2014/0129995 Al May 8, 2014

STATEMENT OF THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1–11 and 14–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kim, Yokohata, Coddington, and Kojima. Final
Act. 2–10.4
Claims 12 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kim, Yokohata, Coddington, Kojima, and Yata. Id.
at 10–12.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Board conducts a limited de novo review of the appealed
rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant, and in
light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye,
94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).

4 The statement of rejection omits claim 18 from list of rejected claims.
Final Act. 2. However, the body of the rejection addresses claim 18. Id.
at 10. Accordingly, we understand the statement of rejection to include a
clerical error and intend to recite claim 18.
Appeal 2018-008304
Application 14/823,501
4
DETERMINATIONS AND CONTENTIONS
The Examiner finds that the cited combination teaches all of the
limitations of the independent claims. Final Act. 2–5. Of particular
relevance, the Examiner relies on the combination of Coddington and
Kojima for teaching the claim limitation,
circuitry configured to . . . control the camera unit to adjust center
coordinates of a clipping position at a time of clipping the image
region from the image without changing the photography zoom
power by multiplying a parameter indicative of a movement of
the user input by a predetermined scale factor.
Id. at 4; Ans. 12–13.
More specifically, the Examiner initially finds that Coddington
teaches “adjusting a clipping position at a time of clipping the image region
from the image by multiplying a parameter indicative of a movement of the
user input by a predetermined scale factor.” Final Act. 4. Subsequently,
though, the Examiner alternatively finds that the combined teaching of Kim,
Yokohata, and Coddington fails to teach that “the user input is a single
continuous dragging gesture performed by the user’s finger, and to adjust
center coordinates of a clipping position, without changing the photography
zoom power.” Id. at 5. The Examiner relies on Kojima to cure the
deficiencies of Coddington, finding that Kojima teaches, inter alia,
“adjust[ing] the center coordinates of a clipping position . . . without
changing the photography zoom power.” Id. at 5. The Examiner
subsequently reiterates that Yokohata is relied upon to teach “adjust[ing]
center coordinates.” Ans. 12.
Appellant argues, inter alia, that Coddington fails to disclose “[a
parameter indicative of a movement of the user input] is multiplied by a
Appeal 2018-008304
Application 14/823,501
5
predetermined scale factor.” Appeal Br. 7. Appellant further argues Kojima
fails to remedy this deficiency in Coddington. Id.

ANALYSIS
We agree with Appellant that Coddington fails to disclose
“multiplying a parameter . . . by a predetermined scaling factor,” as claimed.
The Examiner does not explain what particular element or step in
Coddington allegedly corresponds to or performs the claimed multiplication
by a scaling factor. Final Act. 2–5; Ans. 12–13. Furthermore, the portions
of Coddington cited by the Examiner alternatively disclose using a pinch
and/or stretch gesture to control a zoom function—not an adjustment to the
center coordinates of a clipping position, much less such an adjustment that
is based on a function of a scale factor, as claimed. Coddington ¶¶ 28, 48,
50; FIG. 2, cited in Final Act. 4.
The Examiner also fails to point to any of the other cited references to
cure this deficiency in Coddington. Thus, the Examiner has not established
that the cited combination of references discloses or suggests this limitation
of claim 1. For these reasons, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of
independent claim 1, of independent claims 14 and 19, which recite similar
language, or of claims 2–11, 15–18, and 20, which depend from these
independent claims.
With respect to the remaining obviousness rejection of dependent
claims 12 and 13, the Examiner does not rely on the additionally cited
reference, Yata, to cure the deficiencies explained above. Final Act. 10–12.
Accordingly, we likewise do not sustain the obviousness rejection of these
claims for the reasons set forth for claim 1 above.
Appeal 2018-008304
Application 14/823,501
6
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:

REVERSED

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed
1–11, 14–20 103 Kim,
Yokohata,
Coddington,
Kojima

1–11, 14–20
12, 13 103 Kim,
Yokohata,
Coddington,
Kojima, Yata

12, 13
Overall
Outcome
1–20