Andrew L.P. Wu et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 19, 2019

14982737 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 19, 2019)

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.
14/982,737 12/29/2015 Andrew L.P. WU 092283.000854 6853
23377 7590 08/19/2019
BakerHostetler
Cira Centre 12th Floor
2929 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104-2891
EXAMINER
DOBBS, KRISTIN SENSMEIER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/19/2019 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):
eofficemonitor@bakerlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ANDREW L.P. WU and SUDEEP MOHAN
____________

Appeal 2018-006855
Application 14/982,7371
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before, NORMAN H. BEAMER, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.

BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction over the pending
rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

1 Appellants identify Avigilon Corporation as the real party in interest.
(App. Br. 2.)
Appeal 2018-006855
Application 14/982,737

2
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ disclosed and claimed invention is directed to a multi-
headed camera assembly that provides video-based surveillance. (Spec.
¶ 2.)
Independent claims 1, 12, 16, and 20, reproduced below, are
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A multi-headed camera assembly, comprising:
a base comprising a plurality of tracks;
a plurality of support frames; and
a plurality of image sensor assemblies, each image sensor
assembly comprising a housing, a lens assembly, and a support
mechanism configured to allow a quick and efficient assembly
of the lens assembly within the housing, wherein each image
sensor assembly is removably coupled to the base by a support
frame among the plurality of support frames, each support
frame including:
a guide member for guiding tilt movement of each
image sensor assembly, and
a support base movably coupled to a track among
the plurality of tracks so as to enable pan movement of each
image sensor assembly.

12. An image sensor assembly support apparatus,
comprising:
a support base capable of moving along a track so as to
enable pan movement of an image sensor assembly;
a release member capable of releasing the support base to
allow the support base to move along the track and locking the
support base at a desired position on the track;
a pair of gimbals for rotatably receiving a ball joint of the
image sensor assembly; and
a guide member configured to guide tilt movement of the
image sensor assembly.

Appeal 2018-006855
Application 14/982,737

3
16. An image sensor assembly amongst a plurality of image
sensor assemblies in a multi-headed camera assembly,
comprising:
a housing cover for each image sensor assembly amongst
the plurality of image sensor assemblies, the housing cover
configured to receive a lens assembly; and
a support mechanism for each image sensor assembly
amongst the plurality of image sensor assemblies, the support
mechanism configured to allow a quick and efficient assembly
of the lens assembly within the housing cover.

20. A method of adjusting an image sensor apparatus of a
multi-headed camera assembly, comprising:
panning an image sensor apparatus among a plurality of
image sensor apparatus along a track among a plurality of
tracks, further comprising:
disengaging a release member of a support frame
from the track,
moving the image sensor apparatus along the track
to a desired position, and
locking the image sensor apparatus at the desired
position by engaging the release member with the track; and
tilting the image sensor apparatus along a guide
member of the support frame, further comprising:
loosening a connecting member of the support
frame from the image sensor apparatus,
moving the image sensor apparatus along a guide
groove formed in the guide member to a desired position, and
locking the image sensor apparatus at the desired
position by tightening the connecting member to the image
sensor apparatus.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 7, 11, 12, and 16–19 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Henninger III et al. (US
2013/0147963 A1, pub. June 13, 2013) (hereinafter “Henninger”), in view of
McCormack (US 2007/0116458 A1, pub. May 24, 2007). (Final Act. 3.)
Appeal 2018-006855
Application 14/982,737

4
The Examiner rejected claims 3–6, 8–10, 13–15, and 20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Henninger, McCormack, and
DiRisio (US 2004/0066564 A1, pub. Apr. 8, 2004). (Final Act. 13.)

ISSUES ON APPEAL
Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following
issues:2
Issue One: Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Henninger and McCormack teaches or suggests “a multi-headed camera
assembly comprising: a base comprising a plurality of tracks, a plurality of
support frames, and a plurality of image sensor assemblies . . .,” as recited in
independent claim 1, and the “image sensor assembly amongst a plurality of
image sensor assemblies in a multi-headed camera assembly” of independent
claim 16. (App. Br. 11–20, 24–26.)
Issue Two: Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Henninger and McCormack teaches or suggests “a release member capable
of releasing the support base to allow the support base to move along the
track and locking the support base at a desired position on the track,” as
recited in independent claim 12. (App. Br. 20–23.)
Issue Three: Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination
of Henninger, McCormack, and DiRisio teaches or suggests “panning an
image sensor apparatus among a plurality of image sensor apparatus along a

2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the positions of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Jan. 9, 2018); the Reply Brief
(filed June 19, 2018); the Final Office Action (mailed Aug. 10, 2017); and
the Examiner’s Answer (mailed May 31, 2018), for the respective details.
Appeal 2018-006855
Application 14/982,737

5
track among a plurality of tracks,” and “moving the image sensor apparatus
along the track,” as recited in independent claim 20. (App. Br. 26–27.)

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments. Arguments Appellants could have made but chose not to make
are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
First Issue
In finding that the combination of Henninger and McCormack teaches
or suggests the claim 1 limitation at issue, the Examiner relies on
Henninger’s disclosure of a surveillance camera system assembled using one
of a group of camera heads, in which a camera head assembly module
includes a camera head that is rotatable relative to a camera head base.
(Final Act. 3–4; Henninger Abstract, Figs. 1–2, ¶¶ 18, 8, 17, 12, 41–42, 61.)
The Examiner further relies on McCormack’s disclosure of a pant, tilt, and
zoom assembly that includes a pan motor and tilt motor. (Final Act. 4–5;
McCormack Fig. 1, ¶¶ 12, 1–7.) The Examiner relies on the same portions
of Henninger and McCormack in finding Henninger and McCormack
teaches or suggests the limitations of independent claim 16. (Final Act. 8–
11.)
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that
[t]he language recited in claim 1 does not require that the
camera heads in Henninger all be mounted at the same time.
Rather, the claim language does not provide a relationship
between the “image sensor assemblies” of clam 1, only that
they are part of the overall “assembly”
Appeal 2018-006855
Application 14/982,737

6
and that “the recitation ‘multi-headed camera assembly’ has not been given
patentable weight because the recitation occurs in the preamble.” (Ans. 22,
citing In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d
150, 152 (CCPA 1951).)
Appellants argue that “[t]o determine if the preamble is merely
introductory, as the Office appears to believe, or represents additional
structural limitations, the patent/application in its entirety should be
considered.” (Reply Br. 2–3, citing In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1479 (Fed.
Cir. 1994.) Appellants contend that because the rejection “limited its
analysis to other language in the claims . . . the Office failed to consider the
application in its entirety” (Reply Br. 3), and that the disclosure indicates
that the use of a multi-headed camera assembly having multiple image
sensors “provide[s] a 360 degree panoramic view without blind spots.”
(Reply Br. 4, quoting Spec. ¶ 27.)
When considering the patentable weight to afford a claim preamble,
[t]he preamble of a claim does not limit the scope of the claim
when in merely states a purpose or intended use of the invention.
However, terms appearing in a preamble may be deemed
limitations of a claim when they “give meaning to the claim and
properly define the invention.” [citations omitted]
In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1479 (Fed. Cir. 1994). We find the terms
“multi-headed camera” and “assembly” give meaning to the claim and
properly define the invention. Here, the terms “multi-headed camera” and
“assembly” relate not just to a purpose or intended use, but further describe
structural aspects that define the claimed invention. While “assembly” does
not appear defined in Appellants’ claims or disclosure, one skilled in the art
would consider the “assembly” appearing in the claim preamble as a
Appeal 2018-006855
Application 14/982,737

7
completed product, as opposed to a parts kit.3 Such an interpretation is
supported by the body of independent claim 1, which requires that “each
image sensor assembly is removably coupled to the base” so that an
uncoupled image sensor assembly would be excluded from the claim.
Additionally, claim 1 recites a “plurality of tracks” and “a support base
movably coupled to a track among the plurality of tracks so as to enable pan
movement of each image sensor assembly,” establishing the claimed multi-
headed camera assembly requires multiple image sensor assemblies. We
similarly deem the preamble of independent claim 16 as limiting.
In contrast to the claimed “multi-headed camera assembly,”
Henninger teaches “a modular surveillance camera kit” in which the
“surveillance camera system” is “assembled” using a single “selected
camera head.” See Henninger ¶ 8. McCormack also teaches a surveillance
system in which the completed product has “camera 106” having a single
“lens assembly 116.” See McCormack ¶ 8.
Thus the combination of Henninger and McCormack fails to read on
independent claim 1.
The Examiner makes an additional finding regarding independent
claim 16 that “it would have been obvious to duplicate parts and have
multiple image sensor assemblies.” (Final Act. 8, citing In re Harza, 274
F.2d 669 (CCPA 1960).) Such a finding, if correct, would support an
obviousness rejection of both independent claims 1 and 16. We agree,

3 For example, the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “assembly” as “the
fitting together of manufactured parts into a complete machine, structure, or
unit of a machine” and “a collection of parts so assembled.” See
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assembly.
Appeal 2018-006855
Application 14/982,737

8
however, with Appellants that the duplication of parts rationale of In re
Harza, when applied to the combination of Henninger and McCormack,
does not establish obviousness, because the duplication of image sensor
assemblies produces a new and unexpected result in that multiple image
sensor assemblies “provide[s] a 360 degree panoramic view without blind
spots.” The Examiner’s finding that “Henninger already teaches the
production of a 360 degree image in Fig. 1 and double arrow 20” appears
incorrect, as Henninger would not need a rotatable camera head if the single
camera lens produced a 360 degree image.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 1 and 16, and dependent claims 2–11 and 17–19.
Second Issue
In finding that the combination of Henninger and McCormack teaches
or suggests the claim 12 limitation at issue, the Examiner relies on the
disclosure of McCormack of a shroud that is configured to maintain both
relaxed and engaged positions, in which teeth arranged about the outer
periphery of the shroud mesh with teeth on the outer periphery of a ring
latch. (Final Act. 7–8; McCormack, Figs. 1–2, ¶¶ 21–23, 1–7.)
Appellants argue “[a]pplicant sees no evidence that McCormack
discloses anything closely resembling a track, along which a support base
could move” and “McCormack does not disclose a release member that is
configured to release a support base so that the support base moves along a
track as claimed.” (App. Br. 23.)
The Examiner finds, and we agree
McCormack teaches a removable unit 210 which includes a
shroud 236 that is slidably coupled to a chassis 237. The shroud
236 is configured to maintain a relaxed position (shown in FIG.
Appeal 2018-006855
Application 14/982,737

9
1) and an engaged position. In the engaged position, a plurality
of teeth 238 arranged circumferentially about an outer periphery
240 of shroud 236 and extending axially toward ring latch 216
are configured to mesh with a complementary plurality of teeth
242 arranged circumferentially about an outer periphery 244 of
ring latch 216 and extending axially toward teeth ('track') 238
(para. [0023], Fig. 2). Bias members 248 (also in cited paragraph
[0023]) are configured to return shroud 236 to the relaxed
position when the axial force applied to shroud 236 is removed
(i.e., “release” from engaged position).
(Ans. 24, citing McCormack, Figs. 1–2, ¶ 23 (emphasis added).)
We see no error in the Examiner’s extensive and detailed findings,
and Appellants do not address the Examiner’s findings either in the Appeal
or Reply.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 12, and dependent claims 13–15 not argued separately with
particularity. See App. Br. 23.
Third Issue
In finding that the combination of Henninger, McCormack, and
DiRisio teaches or suggests the claim 20 limitations at issue, the Examiner
relies on the disclosure of DiRisio of cam tracks interior to the wall of a lens
barrel. (Final Act. 21–22; DiRisio, Fig. 5, ¶ 27.)
Appellants renew their argument based on Henninger’s use of a single
lens, arguing that
Henninger only discloses a camera kit with interchangeable
camera heads, but does not disclose a camera assembly that
includes (or could possibly be modified to include) multiple
camera heads at the same time, which Henninger would have to
disclose in order to be able to teach the limitation of “panning an
image sensor apparatus among a plurality of image sensor
apparatus along a track among a plurality of tracks.”
Appeal 2018-006855
Application 14/982,737

10
(App. Br. 26, emphasis in original.)
We agree with Appellants. Independent claim 20 is similar to
independent claim 1 in that the claim preamble states “a method of adjusting
an image sensor apparatus of a multi-headed camera assembly,” whereas no
“multi-headed camera assembly” appears in the claim limitations. Under the
reasoning regarding independent claims 1 and 16, supra, we deem
independent claim 20’s preamble limiting. Additionally, the limitation of
“panning an image sensor apparatus among a plurality of image sensor
apparatus [sic] along a track among a plurality of tracks” further establishes
that the multi-headed camera assembly contains a plurality of image sensor
apparatuses, whereas the combination of the references only teach or suggest
a single image sensor apparatus in the surveillance system. For the reasons
explained above regarding independent claims 1 and 16, we do not find the
combination of Henninger, McCormack, and DiRisio teaches or suggests
independent claim 20.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 20.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–11, and 16–20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 12–15 under 35
U.S.C. § 103.
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)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART