Lumileds LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 27, 2021

2020006703 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 27, 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.
16/049,480 07/30/2018 Arjen VAN DER SIJDE 2018P00010US01 017US1 3946
161449 7590 12/27/2021
SLW/Lumileds
P.O. BOX 2938
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
EXAMINER
YANG, NIEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2484
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/27/2021 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):
SLW@blackhillsip.com
lumileds@maxval.com
uspto@slwip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ARJEN VAN DER SIJDE, NICOLA PFEFFER, and
CHARLES SCHRAMA
Appeal 2020-006703
Application 16/049,480
Technology Center 2400
Before RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, HUNG H. BUI, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s rejection. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 Herein, “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Lumileds LLC.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-006703
Application 16/049,480
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The Application describes “an image capture system having an
invisible light pre-flash.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claims 1–8, 10–17, and 19–22 are
pending; claims 1 and 17 are independent. Appeal Br. 13–19. Claim 1 is
reproduced below for reference (emphasis added):
1. An image capture system, comprising:
an illuminator configured to emit infrared light having at
least one infrared wavelength and emit visible light having at
least one visible wavelength;
at least one image sensor having a sensitivity to an infrared
range of wavelengths that includes the at least one infrared
wavelength and a visible range of wavelengths that includes the
at least one visible wavelength;
at least one processor coupled to the illuminator and the at
least one image sensor; and
a memory configured to store instructions, that, when
executed by the at least one processor, cause the image capture
system to perform operations, the operations comprising:
emitting infrared light from the illuminator as a pre-
flash;
while the infrared light is being emitted, capturing
at least one infrared image with the at least one image sensor;
determining an infrared exposure setting based on
the at least one infrared image;
scaling the infrared exposure setting to determine a
visible exposure setting;
emitting visible light from the illuminator as a flash;
and
while the visible light is being emitted, capturing a
visible image with the at least one image sensor using the visible
exposure setting
References and Rejections
(1) Claims 1–5, 12–17, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Wood (US 2013/0155253 A1; June 20,
Appeal 2020-006703
Application 16/049,480
3
2013) in view of Chinnock et al. (US 2013/0033593 A1; Feb. 7, 2013).
Final Act. 3.
(2) Claims 6–8, 10, 11, and 20–22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Wood and Chinnock, and further in view
of Shah. (US 9,704,250 B1; July 11, 2017). Final Act. 12.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments. Arguments not made by Appellant are deemed to be waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). We disagree with Appellant that the
Examiner erred and adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner, to the extent consistent with our analysis below. We add the
following primarily for emphasis.
Appellant argues the Examiner’s rejection is in error, because Wood
does not teach or suggest the disputed limitations: (1) “determining an
infrared exposure setting based on the at least one infrared image” (the
“determining” limitation) and (2) “scaling the infrared exposure setting to
determine a visible exposure setting,” (the “scaling” limitation) as recited in
claim 1. Appeal Br. 9. Particularly, Appellant contends the following:
The cited portion of Wood does not disclose if or how an infrared
exposure setting is determined. The cited portion of Wood
further does not disclose basing such an infrared exposure setting
on an infrared image. Clearly, the cited portion of Wood does
not disclose, teach, or even suggest “determining an infrared
exposure setting based on the at least one infrared image,” as
recited by independent claims 1 and 17.
The cited portion of Wood does not disclose how or if a visible
exposure setting is determined. The cited portion of Wood
determining [sic] such a visible exposure setting by scaling an
infrared exposure setting. Clearly, the cited portion of Wood
Appeal 2020-006703
Application 16/049,480
4
does not disclose, teach, or even suggest “scaling the infrared
exposure setting to determine a visible exposure setting,” as
recited by independent claims 1 and 17.
Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner
erred. Wood, as cited by the Examiner, teaches a camera subsystem
including image sensor “sensitive to light in the visible spectrum as well as
light in the infrared spectrum.” Wood ¶ 27; Final Act. 3–4. Wood’s camera
subsystem uses “infrared light to pre-flash or pre-analyze a scene,” similar to
the claimed method (“emitting infrared light from the illuminator as a pre-
flash”). Wood ¶ 38; Final Act. 4. Particularly, Wood’s “IR illuminator can
be activated to illuminate the scene, and measurements can be taken of the
infrared light reflections . . . . to determine whether or not later visible-light
illumination can assist in metering the photographic scene.” Wood ¶ 37;
Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds Wood, thus, teaches the disputed
limitation. See Advisory Act. 2–3 (mailed February 20, 2020).
We agree with the Examiner. Wood teaches the claimed step of
“determining an infrared exposure setting based on the at least one infrared
image,” because Wood takes exposure measurements from the infrared
image. See Advisory Act. 2; Wood ¶ 37 (“measurements can be taken of the
infrared light reflections”), ¶ 38 (“Since infrared illumination is not readily
visible to human eyes, the method can discreetly analyze the scene of a
potential photograph.”); see also Wood ¶ 40 (“[A]nalyzes sensor data to
produce exposure data,” and “sensor data can be produced by the main
image sensor.”). Thus, the Examiner’s finding is supported by a
preponderance of the evidence. Appellant argues Wood does not disclose
the disputed “determining” limitation, but fails to put forth sufficient
Appeal 2020-006703
Application 16/049,480
5
reasoning or evidence to show the claim is patentably distinguishable from
the teachings of the reference. See Appeal Br. 4; cf. SmithKline Beecham
Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 439 F.3d 1312, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[M]ere
statements of disagreement . . . do not amount to a developed argument.”).
We also agree with the Examiner that Wood teaches the claimed
“scaling the infrared exposure setting to determine a visible exposure
setting.” Final Act. 5. Appellant’s Specification describes such scaling is
the settings “conversion from infrared light to visible light.” Spec. ¶ 15.
Like Appellant’s Specification, Wood teaches “[r]eflected infrared
light from the photographic scene is measured to produce exposure data,”
and, in “response to the exposure data, a sensor is exposed and image data
from the sensor in the electronic device is stored” to capture an image.
Wood Abstract; Advisory Act. 2. We further note that, as part of the process
flow cited by the Examiner, Wood uses the IR pre-flash to generate exposure
commands, which “can include instructions for controlling an aperture
opening” and “can also take into consideration whether illuminator 162 or
IR illuminator 164 will be activated during image exposure.” Wood ¶ 40;
see Final Act. 4, 5 (referring to steps in Wood Fig. 5). We find that the
disputed “scaling” limitation is obvious in view of the teachings of Wood,
because Wood’s (visible) image exposure settings are necessarily converted
from the determined infrared exposure settings. See Final Act. 5; Wood ¶ 37
(“The infrared light reflected by the scene can be used to determine whether
or not later visible-light illumination can assist in metering the photographic
scene.”).
In the Reply Brief, Appellant raises new arguments. See, e.g., Reply
Br. 3 (“[T]he cited portion of paragraphs [0037]-[0038] of Wood appear to
be directed toward determining if a visible flash is needed to photograph a
Appeal 2020-006703
Application 16/049,480
6
scene.). These arguments could have been—but were not—raised in the
Appeal Brief. See Final Act. 4. Thus, Appellant’s new arguments are not
timely raised, and will not be considered. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2); see
also Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1473–74 (BPAI 2010) (informative
opinion).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner
erred in finding independent claim 1 and 17 obvious over the combined
teachings of Wood and Chinnock. Appellant does not present separate
substantive arguments for the remaining claims. See Appeal Br. 11. Thus,
we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of all pending claims. See
37 C.F.R. 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 12–17,
19
103 Wood, Chinnock 1–5, 12–17,
19

6–8, 10, 11,
20–22
103 Wood, Chinnock,
Shah
6–8, 10, 11,
20–22

Overall
Outcome
1–8, 10–17,
19–22

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED