SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 11, 2021

2020002017 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 11, 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.
15/620,532 06/12/2017 Richard Mark Clayton 151477US01 4337
126568 7590 06/11/2021
Zebra Technologies Corporation
3 Overlook Point
Lincolnshire, IL 60069
EXAMINER
BOYLAN, JAMES T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/11/2021 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):
docketing@zebra.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte RICHARD MARK CLAYTON,
PATRICK MARTIN BROWN, and
CHINMAY NANDA
____________________

Appeal 2020-002017
Application 15/620,532
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2020-002017
Application 15/620,532
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1–8, 10–17, and 19–23. Claims 9 and 18 have been cancelled (see
Appeal Br. 15, 17) (Claims App.). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We affirm.

DISCLOSED AND CLAIMED INVENTION
According to Appellant, the disclosed invention, entitled “Frame
Synchronization of Multiple Image Capture Devices” (Title), pertains to
timing relationships between frames of image data “when multiple image
capture devices (also referred to herein as image sensors) [see Fig. 2, image
sensors 212, 214, 216, 218] are deployed in an environment to capture
frames of image data representative of the environment” in order “to detect
and/or measure objects located in the environment” (Spec. ¶ 1).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method of synchronizing image frame capture timing
for a plurality of fixed-frame rate image sensors having a same
frame rate, the method comprising:
determining, at a logic circuit, a capture offset for each of
the plurality of fixed-frame rate image sensors, the capture offset
being based on a common time base that is independent from at
least some of the plurality of fixed-frame rate image sensors;
when the capture offset for a first one of the image sensors
is greater than a first threshold value, sending, from the logic

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2018). “The word ‘applicant’ when used in this title refers
to the inventor or all of the joint inventors, or to the person applying for a
patent as provided in §§ 1.43, 1.45, or 1.46.” 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant
identifies the real party in interest as Symbol Technologies, LLC (Appeal
Br. 2).
Appeal 2020-002017
Application 15/620,532
3
circuit, a restart signal to the first one of the image sensors to
restart the first one of the image sensors and awaiting a restart
period before receiving subsequent image data from the first one
of the image sensors; and
when the capture offset for the first one of the image
sensors is less than a second threshold offset value, determining
that the first one of the image sensors is synchronized to the
common time base and continuing to receive subsequent image
data from the first one of the image sensors,
wherein the restart signal includes at least one of a power
interrupt signal and a hardware reset signal.

Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.) (emphases added).

EXAMINER’S REJECTIONS and APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS
Examiner’s Rejections
The Examiner made the following rejections:
(1) Claims 1–5, 10–14, and 19–21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2016/0057402 A1; published
Feb. 25, 2016), Bentley et al. (US 2015/0324636 A1; published Nov. 12,
2015) (hereinafter, “Bentley”), and Hashimoto (US 2011/0242300 A1;
published Oct. 6, 2011) (hereinafter, “Hashimoto”). Final Act. 4–16; Ans. 3.
(2) Claims 6, 15, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Wang, Bentley, Hashimoto, Boone et al. (US 10,015,369
B2; issued July 3, 2018 and filed May 4, 2016) (hereinafter, “Boone”), and
Rappel (US 2017/0199366 A1; published July 13, 2017 and filed Jan. 9,
2017). Final Act. 16–19; Ans. 3.
(3) Claims 7 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Wang, Bentley, Hashimoto, Boone, Rappel, and Pitigoi-
Aron et al. (US 2016/0370845 A1; published Dec. 22, 2016) (hereinafter,
“Pitigoi-Aron”). Final Act. 19; Ans. 3–4.
Appeal 2020-002017
Application 15/620,532
4
(4) Claims 8, 17, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Wang, Bentley, Hashimoto, Boone, Rappel, and Dai et al.
(US 2011/0158507 A1; published June 30, 2011) (hereinafter, “Dai”). Final
Act. 20; Ans. 4.
Appellant’s Contentions
(1) With regard to the obviousness rejection of claims 1–5, 10–14, and
19–21 over the combination of Wang, Bentley, and Hashimoto (see supra
Rejection 1), Appellant primarily argues the merits of independent claim 1,
and makes similar arguments as to the patentability of remaining
independent claims 10 and 19 (see Appeal Br. 8–13). Based on Appellant’s
arguments, and because independent claims 1, 10, and 19 contain
commensurate limitations, we select claim 1 as representative of claims 1–5,
10–14, and 19–21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combination of
Wang, Bentley, and Hashimoto. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
With regard to claim 1, Appellant primarily contends that the
Examiner’s motivations for combining Wang, Bentley, and Hashimoto are
conclusory, and do not provide a clearly articulated reasoning with rational
underpinnings supporting the legal conclusion of obviousness (e.g., how and
why there would be motivation to combine) (see Appeal Br. 9–13). Notably,
Appellant does not dispute that (i) the individual references disclose what
they are each relied on for; or (ii) the applied references together teach all of
the subject matter recited in claim 1. Rather, Appellant only disputes
whether or not it would have been obvious to combine Wang, Bentley, and
Hashimoto.
(2) Because Appellant does not present any separate arguments as to
the obviousness rejections of claims 6–8, 15–17, 22, and 23 (see supra
Rejections 2–4), Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in
Appeal 2020-002017
Application 15/620,532
5
rejecting claims 6–8, 15–17, 22, and 23, and therefore we sustain the
obviousness rejections of claims 6–8, 15–17, 22, and 23 over the base
combination of Wang, Bentley, and Hashimoto taken with various other
prior art references, pro forma. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1076
(BPAI 2010) (“Precedential”) (“[T]he Board will generally not reach the
merits of any issues not contested by an appellant.”); 37 C.F.R. § 41.37
(c)(1)(iv) (Each ground of rejection must be treated under a separate
heading.). Other than including the prior art rejections of claims 6–8, 15–17,
22, and 23 (see supra Rejections 2–4) in our conclusion, we will not discuss
these rejections further.

ISSUE
Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief (Appeal Br. 8–
13), the following principal issue is presented on appeal:
Has Appellant shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–8, 10–
17, and 19–23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because the Examiner fails to provide
a rational articulation of the reasons for combining Wang, Bentley, and
Hashimoto to teach or suggest the method of synchronizing image frame
capture timing set forth in claim 1?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections (Final Act. 4–20) in light
of Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 8–13) that the Examiner has erred, as
well as the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal
Brief (Ans. 4–5). With regard to representative claim 1, we agree with and
adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings of facts and conclusions as set
forth in the Final Action (Final Act. 5–7) and Answer (Ans. 4–5). On the
Appeal 2020-002017
Application 15/620,532
6
record before us, Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in
combining Wang, Bentley, and Hashimoto. We provide the following
explanation for emphasis only.
The USPTO “must examine the relevant data and articulate a
satisfactory explanation for its action including a ‘rational connection
between the facts found and the choice made.’” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n
v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted); see Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor
Graphics Corp., 814 F.3d 1309, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (stating that, as an
administrative agency, the PTAB “must articulate logical and rational
reasons for [its] decisions” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).
This is done by presenting, for obviousness, a prima facie case. The
Examiner has the initial burden to set forth basis for any rejection so as to
put Appellant on notice of reasons why Appellant is not entitled to patent on
claim scope sought, i.e., a prima facie case). Ex Parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d
1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
In the case before us, the Examiner’s rejection in the Final Action sets
forth a prima facie case of obviousness for the subject matter of claim 1 (see
Final Act. 5–7). Appellant’s arguments that there is insufficient motivation
articulated by the Examiner are unpersuasive in view of the prima facie case
of obviousness set forth in the Final Action (see Final Act. 5–7), and as
further explained in the Examiner’s Answer (see Ans. 4–5).
The Examiner finds (see Final Act. 5), and we agree, that Wang
discloses a method of synchronizing image frame capture timing for a
plurality of fixed-frame rate image sensors (see Fig. 1, image detection units
10 and 20), including sending a restart signal when a capture offset exceeds
a first threshold, and when the capture offset is less than a second threshold,
Appeal 2020-002017
Application 15/620,532
7
determining the image sensors are synchronized. The Examiner also finds
(see Final Act. 6–7), and we agree, that (i) Bentley (¶ 238) discloses
synchronizing plural image sensors using a common clock or time base; and
(ii) Hashimoto (¶ 10) discloses a restart signal for an image sensor that
includes a power interrupt signal or a hardware reset signal.
We agree with Appellant’s assertion (see Appeal Br. 9–10) that a
properly made prima facie case of obviousness must not only show that all
of the elements of the claims exist in the prior art, but must show some
reason or motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
Appellant’s invention to put the elements together, in order to teach or
suggest the claimed subject matter. However, the obviousness inquiry does
not ask “whether the references could be physically combined but whether
the claimed inventions are rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior art
as a whole.” In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc)
(“Etter’s assertions that Azure cannot be incorporated in Ambrosio are
basically irrelevant, the criterion being not whether the references could be
physically combined but whether the claimed inventions are rendered
obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole.”); In re Sneed, 710 F.2d
1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the
references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under
review.”); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (“The test for
obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be
bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference . . . .”).
Rather, in a case such as this where each of the elements of the claim are
known to the art, the obviousness inquiry requires a finding that the
combination of known elements was obvious to a person with ordinary skill
in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007).
Appeal 2020-002017
Application 15/620,532
8
Furthermore, an ordinarily skilled artisan is not compelled to blindly
follow the teaching of one prior art reference over the other without the
exercise of independent judgment. See Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp.,
733 F.2d 881, 889 (Fed. Cir. 1984). “[T]he analysis need not seek out
precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.
In this light, Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner fails to explain
how to modify Wang to include the common clock of Bentley (see Appeal
Br. 9), are unpersuasive. Common sense teaches that familiar items may
have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and persons of ordinary
skill can often fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a
puzzle. KSR, 550 U.S. at 420. Thus, it is not necessary that the references
be physically combinable, without change, to render obvious the invention
under review. Sneed, 710 F.2d at 1550. The criteria instead is what these
references would have meant to a person of ordinary skill in the field of the
invention. In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 986 (Fed. Cir. 1991). What matters
in the context of obviousness is “whether a person of ordinary skill in the art,
having all of the teachings of the references before him, is able to produce
the structure defined by the claim.” Orthopedic Equip. Co., Inc. v. U.S., 702
F.2d 1005, 1013 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
In the instant case, the Examiner has established that one skilled in the
art had both reason and ability to combine the power interrupt and reset
process of Hashimoto and the common clock usage of Bentley with the
synchronization process for multiple image sensors of Wang to achieve the
predictable result of synchronizing image frame capture timing for plural
image sensors as set forth in claim 1 (see Final Act. 5–7; Ans. 4–5)
Appeal 2020-002017
Application 15/620,532
9
Any motivation, “whether articulated in the references themselves
or supported by evidence of the knowledge of a skilled artisan, is
sufficient.” Outdry Techs. Corp. v. Geox S.p.A., 859 F.3d 1364, 1370–71
(Fed Cir. 2017). The obviousness inquiry does not merely ask whether a
skilled artisan could combine the references, but instead asks whether “they
would have been motivated to do so.” InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO
Commc’ns, Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (emphasis omitted).
In the instant case, as to the motivation for modifying Wang with
Bentley, the Examiner determines, and we agree, that:
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention to modify the method by Wang to
add the teachings of Bentley, in order to improve the
synchronization process by utilization of a common time/clock
source [See Bentley [0238]].

Final Act. 6. We also agree with the Examiner (see Ans. 4 (citing Bentley
¶¶ 4, 21)) that Bentley, as well as Wang, discloses the need for
synchronization amongst image data from plural sources. In particular,
Appellant has not shown the Examiner’s reasoning below to be in error:
It is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the clocks in
the cameras will have different opinions on how long a second
is, due to the internal components in the cameras, causing
recordings to drift apart over time. Therefore, it will be
beneficial to have a central external source to deliver the timing
information to the cameras in order to delivery [sic] accurate
timing information. This shows the benefits of utilizing a
common clock source from a remote server to improve upon the
synchronization.

Ans. 4–5.
As to the motivation for modifying Wang with Hashimoto, the
Examiner also determines, and we agree, that:
Appeal 2020-002017
Application 15/620,532
10
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention to modify the method by Wang
(modified by Bentley) to add the teachings of Hashimoto, in
order to restore the imaging element to a normal state (i.e. image
timing in Wang), when the imaging element is out of control [See
Hashimoto [0009]] (i.e. when the extension intervals in Wang
grow larger over time).

Final Act. 7. We also agree with the Examiner (see Ans. 5) that Appellant’s
contentions (see Appeal Br. 12–13) that Hashimoto does not concern camera
synchronization due to having one image sensor are unpersuasive, because
Wang and Hashimoto are from analogous arts (image processing/sensors/
camera technology). Wang teaches synchronizing plural image sensors for
image capture, and Hashimoto teaches a restart signal in the form of a power
interrupt or hardware reset signal.
Moreover, the artisan is not compelled to blindly follow the teaching
of one prior art reference over the other without the exercise of independent
judgment (see Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d 881, 889 (Fed.
Cir. 1984)). Rather, an artisan must be presumed to know something about
the art apart from what the references disclose (see In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d
513, 516 (CCPA 1962)), the artisan is not compelled to blindly follow the
teaching of one prior art reference over the other without the exercise of
independent judgment (see Lear Siegler, 733 F.2d at 889), and skill is
presumed on the part of those practicing in the art (see In re Sovish, 769 F.2d
738, 743 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). In this light, Appellant’s argument that
implementing Hashimoto’s resetting scheme into the synchronization
process of Wang as modified by Bentley would stop the power supply so as
to no longer allow for the continuous capture of image data (see Appeal Br.
12), is unpersuasive.
Appeal 2020-002017
Application 15/620,532
11
Furthermore, “[a] reference must be considered for everything it
teaches by way of technology and is not limited to the particular invention it
is describing and attempting to protect.” EWP Corp. v. Reliance Univ. Inc.,
755 F.2d 898, 907 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (emphasis omitted). Therefore,
Hashimoto’s disclosure of resetting an image sensor by stopping the power
supply (see ¶ 11) (argued by Appellant at Appeal Br. 12) is (i) not relied on
by the Examiner in establishing the prima facie case of obviousness, (ii) not
prevented or ruled out by the language of claim 1, and (iii) not persuasive of
the non-obviousness of claim 1. We agree with the Examiner that one of
ordinary skill in the art would know that a power reset signal is needed as
capture offset amongst image sensors grows over time (see Ans. 5), and that
Wang does not describe that continuous image capture must always be
performed. Claim 1, which recites the use of a power interrupt signal, is
suggestive of the desirability of resetting image sensors by discontinuing
power.

Appeal 2020-002017
Application 15/620,532
12
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has not demonstrated any error
in the rejection of representative claim 1 and claims 2–5, 10–14, and 19–21
grouped therewith. Accordingly, all of the obviousness rejections of claims
1–8, 10–17, and 19–23 over the base combination of Wang, Bentley, and
Hashimoto are sustained.
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 10–
14, 19–21
103 Wang, Bentley,
Hashimoto
1–5, 10–14,
19–21

6, 15, 22 103 Wang, Bentley,
Hashimoto, Boone,
Rappel
6, 15, 22
7, 16 103 Wang, Bentley,
Hashimoto, Boone,
Rappel, Pitigoi-
Aron
7, 16
8, 17, 23 103 Wang, Bentley,
Hashimoto, Boone,
Rappel, Dai
8, 17, 23
Overall
Outcome
1–8, 10–17,
19–23

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§§ 41.50(f), 41.52(b).

AFFIRMED