2019005195 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 19, 2021)

Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJan 19, 2021

2019005195 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 19, 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. 14/539,409 11/12/2014 David Perez-Feliciano RPS920140027USNP(710.350) 5191 58127 7590 01/19/2021 FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC 409 BROAD STREET PITTSBURGH, PA 15143 EXAMINER CAMARGO, MARLY S.B. ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2697 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/19/2021 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte DAVID PEREZ-FELICIANO, JUSTIN MICHAEL RINGUETTE, and CATHERINE PRATT DAVIS ________________ Appeal 2019-005195 Application 14/539,409 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before LINZY T. McCARTNEY, JASON J. CHUNG, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1‒8 and 22‒30.1 Claims 9‒21 are canceled. 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 identifies Lenovo (Singapore) PTE. LTD as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2019-005195 Application 14/539,409 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellant’s application relates to combining a foreground image obtained from one camera with a background image obtained from a second camera. Spec. ¶¶ 16‒17. Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed subject matter and reads as follows: 1. A method, comprising: activating, on a device, a world view camera; obtaining, using the world view camera, world view image data; activating, on the device, a front view camera; obtaining, using the front view camera, front view image data; providing, on a display of the device, a view displaying a combined preview of the front view image data and the world view image data, wherein the combined preview is provided prior to capturing and storing the combined image; identifying one or more foreground objects in the front view image data; and identifying one or more background objects in the world view image data; wherein the providing comprises automatically offsetting, during provision of the preview and without user adjustment, the one or more foreground objects and the one or more background objects from one another, wherein the automatically offsetting comprises dynamically positioning the one or more foreground objects in relation to the one or more background objects based upon a predetermined rule set. Appeal 2019-005195 Application 14/539,409 3 The Examiner’s Rejections Claims 1‒7, 22‒28, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Funakura (US 2005/0036044 A1; Feb. 17, 2005) and Gillard (US 2012/0250980 A1; Oct. 4, 2012). See Final Act. 3‒9. Claims 8 and 292 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Funakura, Gillard, and Kim (US 2014/0240540 A1; Aug. 28, 2014). See Final Act. 25‒26. ANALYSIS The Examiner finds the combination of Funakura and Gillard teaches or suggests “providing, on a display of the device, a view displaying a combined preview of the front view image data and the world view image data, wherein the combined preview is provided prior to capturing and storing the combined image,” as recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 6‒7. In particular, the Examiner finds Funakura teaches capturing a user’s face from a first camera and a background region from a second camera and synthesizing these into a single image, which it displays. Ans. 25 (citing Funakura ¶¶ 80, 81, and 83). The Examiner finds the images from the first and second camera are both live images. Id. (citing Funakura ¶ 81). The Examiner further finds “the combined preview is provided prior to capturing/recording it.” Id. (citing Funakura ¶ 85). 2 In the Final Action (Final Act. 25) and the Answer (Ans. 23), the Examiner refers to claim 19 in the rejection header, but claim 29 in the body of the rejection. The reference to claim 19, which stands as canceled, appears to be a harmless, typographical error. The substance of the rejection applies to the limitations of claim 29, and we treat the rejection as applying to this claim. Appeal 2019-005195 Application 14/539,409 4 Appellant argues the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 1 because Funakura teaches synthesizing the foreground and background objects in captured images, rather than providing a preview “prior to capturing and storing the combined image,” as claimed. Appeal Br. 18 (citing Funakura ¶ 85). Appellant argues that prior to actuation of the shutter button, a combined preview is not displayed to the user. Id. Instead, Appellant argues Funakura teaches cycling between the two images to properly frame the images and then pressing the shutter button. Id. (citing Funakura ¶¶ 80‒82). Appellant has persuaded us of Examiner error. Funakura teaches obtaining image data from two cameras, first image pickup unit 16 and second image pickup unit 17. Funakura ¶ 82. First image pickup unit 16 picks up the camera user 50, which is ultimately included in the foreground of the final image. Id. ¶¶ 82‒84. Second image pickup unit 17 picks up persons 52, which are ultimately included in the background of the final image. Id. Funakura teaches camera user 50 uses mode selection keys 22 “to cause the LCD display panel 15 to display a live image or through image of the camera user 50 as picked up by the first image pickup unit 16.” Id. ¶ 81. Funakura further teaches “the mode selection keys 22 are operable for selective displaying of a live image or through image on the LCD display panel 15 between an output of the first image pickup unit 16 and an output of the second image pickup unit 17.” Id. ¶ 87. Thus, as argued by Appellant (see Appeal Br. 18), Funakura teaches a preview that alternates between images from the two cameras.3 Accordingly, the Examiner has not provided 3 This interpretation of Funakura’s teachings is confirmed by Funakura’s further teaching that “it is possible to split the display panel 15 into two Appeal 2019-005195 Application 14/539,409 5 adequate support or explanation for the finding that Funakura teaches “the combined preview is provided prior to capturing/recording it.” Ans. 25 (citing Funakura ¶ 85). For these reasons, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 1.4 We also do not sustain the obviousness rejection of independent claims 22 and 30, which recite commensurate subject matter. We also do not sustain the obviousness rejection of dependent claims 2‒7 and 23‒28 for the same reasons. Claims 8 and 29 stand rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Funakura, Gillard, and Kim. See Final Act. 25‒26. The Examiner does not find that Kim cures the deficiency explained above. Accordingly, we also do not sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 8 and 29 for the same reasons. CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1‒7, 22‒28, 30 103(a) Funakura, Gillard 1‒7, 22‒28, 30 8, 29 103(a) Funakura, Gillard, Kim 8, 29 regions, and to display live images of the first and second image pickup units 16 and 17 at the same time on the display panel 15.” Funakura ¶ 87. Thus, the default operation does not include both images on a single screen. The split-screen preview mode is not relied upon by the Examiner. If prosecution continues, the Examiner may consider in the first instance whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious in light Funakura’s split-screen mode. 4 Because we agree with at least one of the dispositive arguments advanced by Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant’s other arguments. Appeal 2019-005195 Application 14/539,409 6 Overall Outcome 1‒8, 22‒30 REVERSED