Ex Parte Belsarkar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 23, 2017

13188424 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 23, 2017)

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.
13/188,424 07/21/2011 AJIT BELSARKAR 081276-2053 8141
34044 7590 08/25/2017
MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (Bosch)
100 EAST WISCONSIN AVENUE
MILWAUKEE, WI 53202
EXAMINER
MAHMUD, FARHAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2483
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/25/2017 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):
mkeipdocket@michaelbest.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AJIT BELSARKAR and MICHAEL YANNI
Appeal 2017-004859
Application 13/188,424
Technology Center 2400
Before LINZY T. McCARTNEY, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
PER CURIAM.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1—5 and 7—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2017-004859
Application 13/188,424
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present patent application “is directed to an overview
configuration method for a PTZ [pan, tilt, and zoom] camera wherein the
method employs a panorama (plain or circular) image.” Specification 119,
filed July 21, 2011 (“Spec.”). Claims 1, 5, and 11 are independent. Claim 1
illustrates the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of operating a surveillance camera arrangement,
the method comprising the steps of:
panning a PTZ camera about a pan axis;
capturing first images with the camera substantially
throughout the panning;
creating a composite panoramic or circular second image
by stitching together said first images captured during the
panning,
enabling a user to select and modify presets, privacy
masks, recordings, and video analytics profiles, wherein each of
the presets, privacy masks, recordings, and video analytics
profiles includes a location within the composite panoramic or
circular second image;
displaying the composite panoramic or circular second
image including a visual indicator at the location of each of the
presets, privacy masks, recordings, and video analytics profiles
within the composite panoramic or circular second image; and
enabling the user to control the pan, tilt, and zoom
movement of the camera via the locations on the composite
panoramic or circular second image.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1^4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Koyanagi et al. (US 2001/0019355 Al; Sept. 6, 2001)
(“Koyanagi”), Henninger III (US 2005/0270372 Al; Dec. 8, 2005)
2
Appeal 2017-004859
Application 13/188,424
(“Henninger”), and Yonezawa et al. (US 6,983,419 Bl; Jan. 3, 2006)
(“Yonezawa”). Final Office Action 34—54, mailed June 24, 2015 (“Final
Act.”).
The Examiner rejected claims 5 and 7—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Koyanagi and Henninger. Final Act. 5—34.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments, and we disagree with Appellants that the Examiner errs. To the
extent consistent with the analysis below, we adopt the Examiner’s
reasoning, findings, and conclusions set forth in the appealed action and the
Examiner’s Answer. Appellants have waived arguments Appellants failed
to timely raise or properly develop. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv),
41.41(b)(2).
Claims 1, 5, and 7—20
Privacy Masks
Appellants contend the Examiner errs in finding the combination of
Koyanagi and Henninger teaches or suggests “displaying ... a visual
indicator at the location of each of the . . . privacy masks . . . within the
composite panoramic or circular second image,” as recited in claim 1.
Appeal Brief 6—9, filed January 22, 2016 (“App. Br.); Reply Brief 2—3, filed
February 2, 2017 (“Reply Br.”). Appellants argue Henninger does not teach
creating or displaying a composite panoramic image, much less displaying
the locations of privacy masks in such an image. App. Br. 8.
3
Appeal 2017-004859
Application 13/188,424
We find Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive because the arguments
attack Henninger individually, whereas the Examiner concludes the
combined disclosures of Koyanagi and Henninger teach or suggest this
limitation. See Final Act. 34-42 (discussing the combination of Koyanagi
and Henninger with respect to this limitation). The Examiner finds
Henninger teaches a visual indicator at the location of each of the privacy
masks and Koyanagi teaches a composite panoramic image. Final Act. 36
(citing Koyanagi 1 55), 39 (citing Koyanagi 143, Fig. 2), 40-42 (citing
Henninger H 9, 51); see also Answer 3 (citing Koyanagi Fig. 2), mailed
December 5, 2016 (“Ans.”). The Examiner concludes it would have been
obvious to combine Koyanagi’s and Henninger’s teachings in the claimed
manner. Final Act. 36-42. Appellants have not persuaded us that the
Examiner errs because Henninger alone does not teach the disputed
limitation. “[0]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of
references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981).
Appellants acknowledge that “Henninger teaches displaying privacy
masks at specific locations on video images captured by a PTZ camera.”
App. Br. 8 (citing Henninger Abstract). But Appellants argue that because
Henninger’s displayed privacy mask allegedly moves with the camera, the
privacy mask does not “include^ a location within the ... . image.” App.
Br. 8.
We disagree. As found by the Examiner, Henninger teaches that
privacy masks obscure particular locations within an image (e.g., an area in
the image corresponding to a window). Final Act. 40-41 (citing Henninger
119, 51); Ans. 4—5; see also Henninger 149 (“[Processing device 50 . . .
4
Appeal 2017-004859
Application 13/188,424
enables a user to identify private areas, such as the window of a nearby
residence for masking. The privacy mask is then used to obscure the
underlying subject matter depicted in the image” (emphasis omitted)).
Henninger further teaches selecting vertices of the display screen image to
define the specific location of the privacy mask. Henninger H 51, 54, Fig. 6
(depicting an algorithm including the steps of selecting vertices of a privacy
mask). Henninger discloses transforming a mask to account for changes in a
camera’s field of view, but makes clear that the transformed mask still
corresponds to the location of interest. For example, Henninger discloses
“the masked area must be transformed as the field of view of the camera is
changed if the mask is to continue to provide privacy for the same subject
matter, e.g., a window of a nearby residency, as the field of view of the
camera is changed.'1'’ Henninger 149 (emphasis added). We therefore find
Appellants’ argument unpersuasive.
The Examiner explains one of ordinary skill in the art would have
been motivated to combine Koyanagi with Henninger “to obscure that
portion of the video image which corresponds to the private area.” Final
Act. 42 (citing Henninger | 5). Appellants argue the Examiner’s rationale to
combine Koyanagi with Henninger “fails to present any concrete reasoning
to explain how or why it might be obvious to display a visual indicator at a
location of a privacy mask within a composite panoramic image.’ ’ App.
Br. 8 (emphasis modified). Appellants contend “[t]he Examiner’s
explanation fails to identify a reason that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would place a privacy mask within a panoramic image instead of placing a
privacy mask within a non-panoramic image (e.g., the current field-of-view)
as taught by Henninger.” Reply Br. 2. Appellants assert “the difference in
5
Appeal 2017-004859
Application 13/188,424
using privacy masks in different types of image[s] is not trivial” and point to
their written description to show differences in image types and the
deficiencies of current technologies. Reply Br. 2—3 (citing Spec. H 13—14).
Appellants additionally argue their “experience with the marketplace
differs” from the Examiner’s analysis and that “Appellants[] recognized a
need not being met by current products.” Reply Br. 3.
We disagree. The Examiner explicitly provides “concrete reasoning”
to support the proposed combination. The Examiner finds one of ordinary
skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the cited art in the
claimed manner “to obscure that portion of the video image which
corresponds to the private area.” Final Act. 42. This rationale comes
directly from the cited art, see, e.g., Henninger 15, and applies equally to
both panoramic and non-panoramic images.
Although Appellants assert the differences between these image types
are “not trivial,” Reply Br. 2—3, Appellants have not provided persuasive
evidence or reasoning to support this assertion. Appellants simply refer to
parts of their written description that explain that known methods of
configuring fixed cameras do not take advantage of a PTZ’s maneuverability
and that current methods of configuring PTZ cameras restrict the user to a
particular field of view or PTZ position. See Reply Br. 3; see also
Spec. H12—14. The cited paragraphs do not establish that displaying a
visual indicator for a privacy mask at a particular location would have been
“uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.”
Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir.
2007).
6
Appeal 2017-004859
Application 13/188,424
Appellants’ arguments that their experience with the marketplace
differs and that they recognized a need not being met by current products
were raised for the first time in the Reply Brief. Appellants have waived
these arguments because Appellants failed to raise them in the Appeal Brief
and have not shown good cause for their untimely presentation. See Ex
parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (informative). Even if
Appellants had not waived these arguments, Appellants have not presented
any persuasive evidence or reasoning to support them. Appellants’
conclusory assertions that “Appellants’ experience with the marketplace
differs” and that “Appellants recognized a need not being met by current
product” do not establish that either statement is true. See In re Schulze, 346
F.2d 600, 602 (CCPA 1965) (“Argument in the brief does not take the place
of evidence in the record.”).
At bottom, modifying the cited art in the claimed manner would
involve no more than combining familiar elements according to known
methods to yield predictable results. See KSR Int 7 Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to
known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield
predictable results.”). Both Koyanagi and Henninger teach capturing images
with a PTZ camera for display on a display screen. See Koyanagi 42
(explaining that a “pan filter” camera includes a zoom lens), 53 (disclosing
that adjacent pictures are captured by the pan tilter camera and later
combined to form one “panorama picture”); Henninger || 26 (disclosing a
video surveillance system in which a PTZ camera acquires images), 54
(disclosing that acquired images are forwarded to the processing device and
displayed on the display screen). Both Henninger and Koyanagi also teach
7
Appeal 2017-004859
Application 13/188,424
displaying user-selectable visual indicators within these captured images.
See, e.g., Henninger 19 (disclosing the display of a privacy mask on the
display screen whereby a selected portion of the images is obscured), Fig. 6
(item 136: “Draw polygon and perform filling”); Koyanagi Fig. 1 (showing
a frame within a picture of the panoramic picture).1 And as noted above,
Koyanagi teaches a composite panoramic image. We see nothing in the
record before us that suggests combining these elements to arrive at the
claimed invention would have involved anything other than the knowledge
and abilities of one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, Appellants have
not persuaded us the Examiner errs in finding the combination of Koyanagi
and Henninger teaches or suggests the disputed limitation.
Preset
Appellants argue the Examiner’s interpretation of “preset” is
inconsistent with the written description. See Reply Br. 5. Appellants
contend a “preset” is the specific pan, tilt, and zoom coordinates of interest
for the PTZ camera selected by a user. Reply Br. 5 (citing Spec. 1 58,
Fig. 6). Moreover, Appellants contend Yonezawa displays the locations of
presets on a map representing the environment in which a PTZ camera is
placed, not on an actual composite panoramic image as required by claim 1.
App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 4 (citing Yonezawa Abstract, Fig. 4).
We find Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive. The written description
does not define “preset” in the manner argued by Appellants but instead
provides non-limiting examples of the term. For example, the written
1 See also Henninger 151 (discussing the user creating and selecting the
location of the privacy mask); Koyanagi 143 (disclosing that frame 6C is
superimposed on a “panorama picture”).
8
Appeal 2017-004859
Application 13/188,424
description states “[a]s used herein, the term ‘preset’ may refer to a
particular pan, tilt, [and] zoom position of the camera” and “[cjertain, pan,
tilt, [and] zoom locations can be saved as presets.” Spec. ^fl[ 5—6 (emphases
added). The written description also discloses that “[i]n the course of
configuring the presets, the user may specify the Pan, Tilt and Zoom
coordinates of interest.... The user can also specify camera functionality
values such as Focus and Iris modes. These values may be . . . saved as a
preset.” Spec. 1 58; see also Spec. Fig. 6 (displaying an interface for
configuring presets). These examples do not limit “preset” to pan, tilt, and
zoom settings; indeed, the examples indicate the term includes other
“camera functionality values.” Appellants have not identified anything in
the claims or the written description that precludes “preset” from
encompassing Yonezawa’s presets as found by the Examiner. See Final
Act. 43 (citing Yonezawa 4:61—5:23, 5:43—6:16, 7:48—8:6); Ans. 6—7 (citing
Yonezawa 2:3—26); Yonezawa 1:36—38 (explaining that it was known to
store a camera control parameter as a preset).
Moreover, Appellants’ arguments attack Yonezawa individually. See
Keller, 642 F.2d at 426. The Examiner concludes the combined teachings of
Henninger, Koyanagi, and Yonezawa teach or suggest this limitation. Of
note, the Examiner relies on Koyanagi, not Yonezawa, to teach the concept
of displaying a visual indicator at a location within a composite panoramic
image. Final Act. 39. We agree with the Examiner that Koyanagi’s system
teaches this concept by superimposing a frame on a specific location in the
9
Appeal 2017-004859
Application 13/188,424
panoramic picture. Final Act. 39 (citing Koyanagi 143, Fig. 2); Ans. 4
(citing Koyanagi, Fig. 21).2
Appellants further argue the Examiner’s rationale to combine
Koyanagi with Yonezawa is inadequate because “the panorama picture of
Koyanagi would not be capable of displaying locations of the cameras and,
therefore, including the preset indicators alone would not ‘allow a stored
state of the imaging apparatus to be easily grasped.’” App. Br. 10 (citing
Final Act. 44).
We find Appellants’ argument unpersuasive. Appellants’ conclusory
argument does not adequately explain why Koyanagi’s system would not be
capable of displaying locations of the cameras. Cf. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv); In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(explaining an appellant must advance substantive arguments beyond mere
recitation of the claim elements and naked assertions that the corresponding
elements are not found in the prior art). Accordingly, Appellants have not
persuaded us the Examiner errs in concluding “[i]t would have been obvious
... to modify the surveillance methods of Koyanagi... as modified by
Henninger to include the visual indicator at multiple locations as in
Yonezawa ... in order to allow a stored state of the imaging apparatus to be
easily grasped.” Final Act. 43 44 (citing Yonezawa Abstract).
2 Henninger also teaches the concept of displaying a visual indicator at a
location within an actual image with its disclosure of displaying rendered or
infilled pixel blocks at a location of each of the privacy masks within a video
image. See, e.g., Henninger || 9, 44. 51.
10
Appeal 2017-004859
Application 13/188,424
Recording and Video Analytics Profile
Appellants argue “[t]he Examiner’s interpretations of. . . a
recording^ and a video analytics profile are not the broadest reasonable
interpretations because they are inconsistent with the usage of these claim
terms in the Specification . . . Reply Br. 5. Appellants contend a
“recording” is “a panning and tilting path for a PTZ camera to follow.”
Reply Br. 6 (citing Spec. 1 61, Fig. 9). Appellants contend a “video
analytics profile” is “a sensitive area relating to a specific pan, tilt, and zoom
location in which the surveillance camera arrangement detects any
movement during selected hours of the day.” Reply Br. 5—6 (citing Spec.
1 64, Fig. 14). Appellants also argue “[t]he Examiner has provide[d] no
citation or argument explaining why or how Yonezawa or any other
reference would teach or suggest displaying a visual indicator of any
recording or video analytics profile at their location in a composite
panoramic image.” App. Br. 11; see also Reply Br. 4 (making similar
arguments).
We find Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive. As with the term
“preset,” the written description does not explicitly define “recording” or
“video analytics profile” but instead provides non-limiting examples of these
terms. For instance, the written description states that “[a] playback of a
recording of the camera may involve the camera undergoing a predetermined
path of pan, tilt and zoom movements.” Spec. 1 5 (emphasis added). The
written description also explains that Figure 9 shows an “embodiment of the
invention for configuration of record/playback on a display screen” where
“the user has configured a panning and tilting path for the camera to follow.”
Spec. | 61. With respect to “video analytics profile,” the written description
11
Appeal 2017-004859
Application 13/188,424
discloses “[v]ideo analytics settings or parameters such as trip wires or
sensitive areas may relate to specific pan, tilt, [and] zoom locations” and
“[v]ideo analytics settings or parameters may be conjointly referred to herein
as a ‘video analytics profile.’” Spec. 111 (emphasis added); see also Spec.
| 64 (explaining that Figure 14 “illustrates] one embodiment... for
configuration of video analytics profiles” and “[a]s can be seen in FIG. 14
the user has configured two sensitive areas relating to specific pan, tilt, [and]
zoom locations”); Fig. 14.
These statements do not explicitly define either “recording” or “video
analytics profile” in the manner argued by Appellants. The term “recording”
ordinarily includes an image captured by a camera. See, e.g., Recording,
Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed. 2003) (referring to a
definition of “record” that states “something on which sound or visual
images have been recorded”). We see nothing that precludes that meaning
here. Koyanagi teaches or at least suggests a “recording” by displaying a
“panorama picture” that includes dashed boxes that surround portions of the
pictures captured and recorded by a PTZ camera. See Koyanagi 143
(disclosing a frame and a “pan tilter limiter” superimposed on the panoramic
picture); Figs. 1,21. Koyanagi’s panorama picture also suggests a
“recording” under Appellants’ overly narrow interpretation of the term
because the panorama picture reflects the settings and path taken by a PTZ
camera in capturing the pictures used to create the panorama picture. See,
e.g., Koyanagi Fig. 1 item 6B.
With respect to the term “video analytics profile,” the term
encompasses (but is not explicitly limited to) areas that “relate to” specific
pan, tilt and zoom locations. See, e.g., Spec. 111 (“Video analytics settings
12
Appeal 2017-004859
Application 13/188,424
or parameters such as trip wires or sensitive areas may relate to specific pan,
tilt, [and] zoom locations.”). Yonezawa at least suggests a “video analytics
profile” under this interpretation by displaying camera symbols in an image,
each symbol corresponding to a video camera’s image settings. See
Yonezawa 7:60-67 (disclosing that software changes a camera symbol based
on “information of the camera (panning, tilting, imaging or the like)”), 9:59—
10:10 (discussing a “control pointer” displayed with the camera symbol “to
control the panning, tilting and zooming operations of the camera”);
Figs. 6, 9.3
Because the combination of Koyanagi and Yonezawa teaches or at
least suggests “displaying ... a visual indicator at the location of each of the
. . . recordings[] and video analytics profiles within the composite panoramic
. . . image,” we disagree with Appellants’ argument that Koyanagi,
Henninger, and Yonezawa, alone or in combination, do not teach or suggest
these limitations.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, Appellants’ arguments have not
persuaded us the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 1. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 and the rejections of
independent claims 5, and 11 and dependent claims 7—10 and 12—20, which
were not argued separately with particularity beyond the arguments
advanced for claim 1. See App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 2—\.
3 See also Yonezawa 2:8-13; 5:13-23, 51-57; 5:62-6:3; 7:18-22.
13
Appeal 2017-004859
Application 13/188,424
Claims 2—4
Appellants contend the Examiner errs in finding the art teaches or
suggests “wherein the user selects and modifies each said preset, privacy
mask, recording, and video analytics profile at the location within the
composite panoramic or circular second image” as recited in claim 2. App.
Br. 11—13; Reply Br. 5—6. As with claim 1, Appellants argue the
Examiner’s constructions of “preset,” “recording,” and “video analytics
profile” are erroneous because the constructions are inconsistent with the
written description. See Reply Br. 5—6. Appellants also argue that Koyanagi
does not teach or suggest a “preset,” a “video analytics profile,” or a
“recording,” and Henninger does not teach using a privacy mask in a
composite image. See App. Br. 12—13; Reply Br. 5—6.
We find Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive. We find Appellants’
claim construction arguments unpersuasive for the reasons discussed above
with respect to claim 1. We find Appellants’ contentions regarding
Koyanagi and Henninger unpersuasive because the Examiner concludes a
combination of Koyanagi, Henninger, and Yonezawa suggests the subject
matter recited in claim 2, see Final Act. 44-48, but Appellants attack
Koyanagi and Henninger individually, see App. Br. 11—13; Reply Br. 5—6.
As noted above, “one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of
references.” Keller, 642 F.2d at 426.
Moreover, we agree with the Examiner that Yonezawa discloses an
embodiment in which the user shifts or moves the preset symbol, which
teaches or suggests “wherein the user selects and modifies each said preset.”
Ans. 7 (citing Yonezawa 2:18—21); Yonezawa 6:35—37 (explaining that “the
14
Appeal 2017-004859
Application 13/188,424
operator can put the preset symbol on a desired position for a use of it”).
Consistent with the Examiner’s findings relating to controlling the operation
of the camera symbol and camera symbol change, Yonezawa further
discloses an embodiment in which the user drags and drops the camera
symbol or icon onto an image, which teaches or suggests “wherein the user
selects and modifies each said . . . video analytics profile.” Yonezawa Fig. 6
(arrow depicting video camera icon 523 being dragged and dropped on video
display area 614), 7:11—22; Ans. 8 (citing Yonezawa 5:13—23); Final Act. 43
(citing Yonezawa 5:13—23). Further, we agree with the Examiner that
Koyanagi discloses redrawing the frame in a panorama picture area, which
teaches or suggests “wherein the user selects and modifies each said . . .
recording.” Koyanagi, Fig. 16B, 1137; see Final Act. 38, 46 (citing,
Koyanagi Tflf 136—166); Ans. 10. In view of these teachings and suggestions
of the cited prior art, Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner errs in
finding the combination of Koyanagi, Henninger, and Yonezawa renders
obvious the disputed limitations of claim 2.
For the reasons stated above, Appellants have not persuaded us the
Examiner errs in rejecting claim 2. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 2 and the rejections of dependent claims 3 and 4, which
were not argued separately with particularity beyond the arguments
advanced for claim 2. See App. Br. 13.
15
Appeal 2017-004859
Application 13/188,424
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision in rejecting claims 1—5 and 7—20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
16