Ex Parte Bekiares et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 31, 201613279911 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/279,911 10/24/2011 TYRONE D. BEKIARES 22917 7590 09/02/2016 MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. IP Law Docketing 500 W. Monroe 43rd Floor Chicago, IL 60661 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. CM13843 9942 EXAMINER MONK, MARKT ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2661 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/02/2016 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): USAdocketing@motorolasolutions.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TYRONE D. BEKIARES, STEVEN D. TINE, and MATTHEW C. KELLER1 Appeal2015-003355 Application 13/279,911 Technology Center 2600 Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and MELISSA A. RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judges. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1-3, 6, and 8-16.2 Claims 4, 5, 7, and 17-22 were cancelled. App. Br. 2-3. We have jurisdiction over the remaining pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We reverse. 1 Appellants identify Motorola Solutions, Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief 2. 2 In this Decision, we refer to Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed August 7, 2014); Appellants' Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed January 12, 2015); the Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed April 15, 2014); the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed on November 10, 2014); and the original Specification ("Spec.," filed October 24, 2011). Appeal2015-003355 Application 13/279,911 THE INVENTION Appellants' invention is directed to "remotely controlling an image capture position of a movable camera." Spec. i-f 1. Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative: 1. A method performed by a first device that includes a digital camera, the method comprising: capturing, by the digital camera, an image; determining, by the first device, device position data associated with the image; storing, by the first device, the device position data in association with a unique image identifier; receiving, over a data path, an image capture request from a second device, wherein the image capture request includes the unique image identifier; in response to receiving the image capture request, retrieving, by the first device and based on the unique image identifier, the device position data; determining, by the first device, an image capture position of the first device based on the retrieved device position data; and when a current position of the first device corresponds to the determined image capture position, capturing a new image using the digital camera to produce new image data. THE REJECTIONS Claims 1-3, 6, and 9-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kinjo et al. (US 2003/0103149 Al; June 5, 2003) ("Kinjo") and Troy et al. (US 2009/0086199 Al; Apr. 2, 2009) ("Troy"). Final Act. 6-16. 2 Appeal2015-003355 Application 13/279,911 Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kinjo, Troy, and Obrador et al. (US 2004/0202443 Al; Oct. 14, 2004). Final Act. 16-18. ANALYSIS Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Kinjo and Troy teaches or suggests "conveying, to a digital camera, an identifier of a previously captured image and the camera[, and] then aligning its viewshed [(i.e., position data)] to correspond to that of the viewshed of the previously captured image." App. Br. 9. 3 In particular, Appellants assert Kinjo's digital still camera (DSC) conveys "a current position of a target athlete and a current position of the DSC. The DSC then determines where to position itself to capture the current position of the athlete based on the current positions of the athlete and the DSC." Id. at 8-9 (citing Kinjo i-fi-1 143-147) (emphases omitted). Appellants argue Kinjo's DSC does not convey "an identifier of a previously captured image and the [DSC] then aligning its viewshed to correspond to that of the viewshed of the previously captured image." Id. at 9-10 (citing Kinjo i-fi-f 148-149). In other words, Appellants argue Troy does not teach aligning a camera's field of view to the camera's previous field of view when a previous image is captured. Id. at 10. Rather, Appellants argue, Troy teaches providing the camera with a target object's current position, and aligning the camera's field of view to 3 Although the term "viewshed" appears nowhere in Appellants' claims or specification, based on Appellants' briefs, we understand "viewshed" in this context as referring to position data (i.e., current position of a camera and position data stored with a previously captured image). See, e.g., Reply Br 6-7. 3 Appeal2015-003355 Application 13/279,911 the target object's current position. Id. at 9-10 (citing Troy iii! 29-33, 41, 42, 4 7, and 49). The Examiner finds Kinjo's DSC conveys position information from a control apparatus, and when the DSC's current position corresponds to the conveyed position information, the DSC captures a new image. Ans. 4--5 (citing Kinjo iii! 144, 145, 148, and 149); see also Final Act. 8-9 (citing Kinjo if 147). The Examiner also finds Troy teaches positioning a camera on a target object "based on the recalled previously recorded point (retrieved device position data)." Final Act. 5 (citing Troy iii! 29-32 and 49); see also id. at 10-11. The Examiner further explains Troy, therefore, "performs aligning its viewshed to correspond to that of the viewshed of the previously captured image (previously recorded point of a previously captured image)." Ans. 8-9. In contrast to the Examiner's findings, according to claim 1, the determined image capture position for a next image is determined by the camera (the first device) based on device position data associated with a previously captured image by the camera. We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not demonstrated or identified within Kinjo or Troy capturing a new image when a current position of a first device corresponds to a determined image capture position, wherein the determined image capture position is based on device position data associated with a previously captured image. In particular, the Examiner has not sufficiently explained how the DSC's received position information disclosed at paragraphs 143- 149 of Kinjo is based on device position data associated with a previously captured image. In the Final Action, the Examiner finds Kinjo's DSC 4 Appeal2015-003355 Application 13/279,911 determines an azimuth in response to capturing an image. Final Act. 6-7 (citing Kinjo i-fi-f 117, 119, 120, 125, 126). However, the Examiner has not sufficiently explained how the DSC's received position information as described at paragraphs 143-149 of Kinjo (directed to a real-time photographing assisting process) is based on the DSC's determined azimuth associated with a captured image from paragraphs 125-126 of Kinjo (directed to an image ordering process). Similarly with reference to the Troy reference, the Examiner has not provided sufficient support for the proposed mapping. Troy teaches using a recalled previously recorded point ("e.g., selected from the CAD model, entered from the keyboard, or recalled from storage in another manner" (Troy i1 49)) to calculate a direction vector (12) from the position on a target object to a camera. Troy i149. Troy further teaches converting the calculated direction vector (12) to azimuth and elevation angles, and then moving the camera's pan-tilt unit to the azimuth and elevation angles. Id. However, the Examiner has not sufficiently explained how Troy's recalled previously recorded point is based on a device's position data associated with a previously captured image. On this record, we disagree with the Examiner's findings that the cited sections of Kinjo, Troy, or the combination thereof teaches or suggests capturing a new image when a current position of a first device corresponds to a determined image capture position, wherein the determined image capture position is based on device position data associated with a previously captured image. In view of the above discussion and on the record before us, we find the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1 and 12 and, therefore, all dependent claims therefrom. Appellants raise 5 Appeal2015-003355 Application 13/279,911 additional issues in the Briefs. We are persuaded of error with regard to the identified issue discussed supra, which is dispositive as to the rejection of all claims. We, therefore, do not reach the additional issues. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-3, 6, and 8-16. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation