Obviousness

Obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 dictates that a patent may not be obtained if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. The analysis involves considering the scope and content of the prior art, the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue, the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, and secondary considerations of non-obviousness. For this patent, the effective filing date is January 24, 2008.

Here are combinations of prior art references that could potentially render claims of US7841729B2 obvious:

Obviousness of Claim 1: Toroidal Bulb with Circular Reflector and Adjustable Arm

Claim 1 describes an illuminator device with a toroidal-shaped bulb, a circular reflector conforming to the bulb's shape, and an arm for connection to a terminal, allowing the bulb to be positioned relative to a webcam for optimal viewing.

• Combination 1: US3604913A (Crete) in view of common photographic lighting practices.

  • US3604913A (Crete): This patent describes a "Photographic lighting assembly" which includes a circular fluorescent lamp (a type of toroidal bulb) and a reflector positioned around it (FIG. 2). It also discusses mounting means, which could be adapted for connection to various devices.
  • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) in 2007-2008, familiar with photographic lighting and the increasing use of webcams, would have been motivated to adapt existing photographic lighting solutions for webcam use. The benefits of diffuse, shadow-reducing light for portraiture were well-known in photography, and Crete's circular light source with a reflector provides such diffuse illumination. Applying this established photographic lighting principle to a webcam scenario, especially given the recognized "poor lighting" problem for webcam users, would have been an obvious design choice. Integrating an adjustable arm, a common feature in many lighting fixtures and device mounts, to position the light relative to a webcam for "optimal viewing" would be a straightforward application of known mechanical adjustments to achieve a desired aesthetic effect.

• Combination 2: US20070139515A1 (General Instrument Corporation) in view of US3604913A (Crete).

  • US20070139515A1 (General Instrument Corporation): This reference, titled "Lighting for video systems," addresses illumination for video conferencing. While it may not explicitly show a toroidal bulb, it highlights the problem of poor lighting in video systems and the need for improved illumination.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSA encountering the problem of poor webcam lighting (as highlighted by General Instrument Corporation) and being aware of photographic lighting solutions like Crete's circular fluorescent lamp with a reflector, would have been motivated to combine these teachings. The General Instrument Corporation reference provides the problem and the general field of application (video systems), while Crete provides a specific lighting apparatus that produces diffuse light beneficial for faces. The motivation would be to apply a known effective lighting solution (from Crete) to the identified problem in video systems (from General Instrument Corporation) to improve user appearance. The adjustable arm for positioning would be a standard engineering choice for user customization and optimal lighting.

Obviousness of Claim 10: Plurality of Bulbs in Frame Surrounding Webcam

Claim 10 describes an illuminator device for a communications terminal with a frame and screen, comprising multiple bulbs disposed in the frame, with at least one surrounding the webcam.

• Combination 1: US20070121343A1 (Tandberg Telecom AS) in view of general knowledge of illuminated mirrors.

  • US20070121343A1 (Tandberg Telecom AS): This reference, "Illumination device," specifically discusses illuminating users for video conferences and mentions placing lights around a screen. For example, it states "The illuminator 80 is built into a frame 85 of screen 15 of computer. Illuminator 80 is in the form of a plurality of lights 90 configured to achieve a similar effect to the bulbs of earlier embodiments. Plurality of lights 90 surround the webcam 20 and cast diffuse light on the face of the user to minimize any shadows that would not be as flattering to the user." (Description, Paragraph 0048, regarding FIG. 4).
  • Motivation to Combine: Tandberg Telecom AS directly suggests placing a plurality of lights within the frame of a screen to surround a webcam for improved illumination in video conferencing. The patent itself makes a connection to known concepts, stating that FIG. 5 "shows a more decorative arrangement of lights or electrodes 100 much like a make-up mirror." The concept of surrounding a face (or a camera pointed at a face) with lights for even illumination is exemplified by common makeup mirrors. A POSA would have found it obvious to arrange a plurality of bulbs in the frame of a communication terminal's screen, especially around the webcam, for the purpose of flattering illumination, directly drawing from the analogous art of illuminated mirrors and applying it to the webcam context.

• Combination 2: US20070139515A1 (General Instrument Corporation) in view of US20070121343A1 (Tandberg Telecom AS).

  • US20070139515A1 (General Instrument Corporation): As mentioned, this reference addresses lighting for video systems and the general problem of poor illumination.
  • Motivation to Combine: General Instrument Corporation establishes the need for improved lighting in video systems. Tandberg Telecom AS provides a specific solution for this need, detailing the integration of multiple lights into the screen frame around the webcam. A POSA, recognizing the problem articulated by General Instrument Corporation, would be motivated to implement the specific structural arrangement of lights described by Tandberg Telecom AS to achieve the desired improved illumination for video conferencing. The combination is driven by the clear identification of a problem and a directly applicable structural solution within related art.

It is important to note that the obviousness analysis considers what would have been apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made (the priority date of January 26, 2007, or filing date of January 24, 2008, for US7841729B2). Also, a prima facie case of obviousness can be rebutted by showing that the prior art "teaches away" from the claimed invention, meaning the art indicates that adding a feature or combination would undermine or disparage what is disclosed in the prior art.