Ex Parte Bolotine et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 17, 2012

11295091 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte MICHAEL BOLOTINE, PAUL E. HENNINGER III, and
THEODORE L. JONES
____________________

Appeal 2010-010607
Application 11/295,091
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before THU A. DANG, JAMES R. HUGHES,
and GREGORY J. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-010607
Application 11/295,091

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

A. INVENTION
Appellants’ invention is directed to a modular surveillance camera
system having a camera head, system controller and a communication
module electrically and mechanically interconnected (Abstract).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A modular surveillance camera kit, comprising:

a group of camera heads each having a respective set of
performance characteristics and common electrical and
mechanical connectors;

a group of system controllers each having a respective set
of performance characteristics and common electrical and
mechanical connectors; and

a group of communications modules each having a
respective set of performance characteristics and common
electrical and mechanical connectors, each of said
communications modules being configured to be coupled to a
system interface;

wherein a surveillance camera may be assembled inside a
camera housing in a selected one of a plurality of possible
combinations by selecting one of said group of camera heads,
one of said group of system controllers and one of said group of
communications modules such that said selected system
Appeal 2010-010607
Application 11/295,091

3
controller electrically and mechanically interconnects said
selected camera head and said selected communications
module, said common electrical and mechanical connectors
facilitating installation and servicing of the surveillance camera
in the field.

C. REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:

Blackshear US 4,945,367 Jul. 31, 1990
Friend US 6,052,279 Apr. 18, 2000
Mann US 2002/0057915 Al May 16, 2002
Hoyt US 2003/0194971 Al Oct. 16, 2003
Robb US 2005/0072987 Al Apr. 07, 2005
Paolantonio US 2005/0094994 Al May 5, 2005
Fitzgibbon US 2005/0253544 Al Nov. 17, 2005

Claims 1, 5, 7, 24, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Paolantonio.
Claims 8-11, 15-19, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Paolantonio in view of Friend.
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Paolantonio in view of Fitzgibbon.
Claims 12 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Paolantonio in view of Friend and Fitzgibbon.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Paolantonio in view of Fitzgibbon and Robb.
Claims 13 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Paolantonio in view of Friend and Fitzgibbon.
Appeal 2010-010607
Application 11/295,091

4
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Paolantonio in view of Fitzgibbon and Hoyt.
Claims 14 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Paolantonio in view of Friend, Fitzgibbon, and Hoyt.
Claims 6 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Paolantonio in view of Blackshear and Mann.

II. ISSUE
The dispositive issue before us is whether the Examiner has erred in
determining that the Paolantonio teaches “a surveillance camera [that] may
be assembled inside a camera housing in a selected one of a plurality of
possible combinations by selecting one of said group of camera heads, one
of said group of system controllers and one of said group of communications
modules such that said selected system controller electrically and
mechanically interconnects said selected camera head and said selected
communications module” (claim 1, emphasis added).

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Paolantonio
1. Paolantonio discloses an apparatus and method for controlling a
stepper motor in a video surveillance camera dome based upon specific
camera action commands; wherein, the video surveillance camera includes a
chassis 6 inserted within camera housing 8 (Fig. 1; Abstract; ¶¶ [0027],
Appeal 2010-010607
Application 11/295,091

5
[0029], and [0030]). The chassis couples to a pan and tilt video camera
assembly 4 in a fixed orientation (id.).
2. Prior art servicing of installed cameras required disassembly of
the camera chassis from the camera enclosure and other camera components
to repair and/or replace (reinstall) components (¶¶ [0006] and [0007]).
3. Positioning members of chassis 6 have a guide channel 23 that
receives and engages corresponding alignment flanges 24 positioned on the
interior of housing 8 to guide chassis 6 into housing 8 (¶ [0029]).
4. Chassis 6 includes printed circuit board (PCB) 26 that interacts
with the pan and tilt camera assembly 4 and other electrical systems (¶
[0030]). PCB 26 includes a microprocessor 102 and a communication
interface 100; wherein, communications interface 100 automatically detects
what data communications protocol is being transmitted to the camera dome
and automatically configures the dome to operate according to the protocol
received (Fig. 8; ¶ [0037]).
5. Chassis 6 receives and engages a heater assembly 48 (Figs. 5
and 7; ¶¶ [0033] and [0034]).
Friend
6. Friend discloses a portable data terminal having a modem 56
(Fig. 6; col. 6, ll. 38-45).
Fitzgibbon
7. Fitzgibbon discloses an operator 12 that includes a current limit
portion 12a which controls current to the additional devices, such as light
fixtures (53, 54, 55, 56) and laser positioning devices (57); wherein, the
current limit portion of the operator may include a single current limit device
or multiple current limit devices (Fig. 2; ¶¶ [0009] and [0029]).
Appeal 2010-010607
Application 11/295,091

6
Robb
8. Robb discloses hot swapping circuitry which is used when
plugging or unplugging electronic circuit cards from their power source
without removing power from the system; wherein, the hot swapping circuit
31 includes a current limit device/circuit 38 (Fig. 2 and 7; ¶¶ [0002], [0026],
and [0036]).
Hoyt
9. Hoyt discloses an AM logic signal that is applied to the two
transmission gates 4 that is inverted which tri-states both gate drivers 4 (Fig.
3; ¶ [0041]).
Mann
10. Mann discloses a network of functional and nonfunctional
cameras which may be installed throughout a store as a cost effective
deterrent to theft (¶ [0186]).

IV. ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 7, and 24
Appellants contend that “Paolantonio does not disclose that a camera
4, microprocessor 102, and/or communication interface 100 each have
common electrical and mechanical connectors for quick connection to
facilitate removal and replacement of the components” (App. Br. 6-7).
Appellants argue that “Paolantonio also does not disclose or suggest
selecting from a group of cameras 4, microprocessors 102, and/or
communication interfaces 100 having respective sets of performance
characteristics and common electrical/mechanical connectors to form a
modular camera system” (App. Br. 7). Appellants contend that “[t]he
Appeal 2010-010607
Application 11/295,091

7
Examiner repeatedly and improperly relies on the inherency doctrine to
reject the claim” (id.).
Although the Examiner agrees with Appellants regarding the improper
use of inherency, the Examiner finds that Paolantonio discloses that “camera
components are selected from an inventory/group of camera components”
(Ans. 24).
We give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir.
1997). Claim 1 does not place any limitation on what “a surveillance
camera” means, includes, or represents other than it “may be assembled
inside a camera housing … by selecting one of said group of camera heads,
one of said group of system controllers and one of said group of
communications modules” (claim 1). We, however, find that “wherein a
surveillance camera may be assembled” (claim 1) merely represents intended
use of the group of camera heads, system controllers, and communication
modules. That is, such “may be assembled … by selecting” language
merely represents a statement of intended use of the camera heads, system
controllers, and communication modules. An intended use will not limit the
scope of the claim because it merely defines a context in which the invention
operates. Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp.,
320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Thus, we give “wherein a surveillance camera may be assembled
inside a camera housing in a selected one of a plurality of possible
combinations by selecting one of said group of camera heads, one of said
group of system controllers and one of said group of communications
modules such that said selected system controller electrically and
Appeal 2010-010607
Application 11/295,091

8
mechanically interconnects said selected camera head and said selected
communications module” its broadest reasonable interpretation as the
camera heads, system controllers, and communication modules are capable
of being selected and assembled to form a surveillance camera, as consistent
with the Specification and claim 1.
Paolantonio discloses a video surveillance camera including a housing
having a chassis that couples to a pan and tilt video camera assembly (FF 1).
Installation and repairing/replacement of parts within the camera requires
assembly and disassembly of the same parts (FF 2). The chassis includes a
PCB, having a microprocessor and a communication interface, which
interacts with the camera assembly (FF 4). We find that video surveillance
camera comprises a camera head that electrically couples to the
microprocessor and the communication interface. That is, we find that
during installation and repair the modules of Paolantonio’s camera,
including the camera assembly, microprocessor, and communication
interface are capable of being selected and assembled to form a surveillance
camera.
Accordingly, we find that Appellants have not shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over
Paolantonio. Further, Appellants present a similar argument for independent
claim 24 having similar claim language and claim 7 (depending from claim
1); therefore, claims 7 and 24 fall with claim 1.
Claims 5 and 25
Appellants contend that “[w]hile Paolantonio does disclose a heater
element,” “Paolantonio does not disclose or suggest providing ‘a group of
thermal modules’” (App. Br. 10). Appellants argue that “Paolantonio does
Appeal 2010-010607
Application 11/295,091

9
not discuss how heater element 55 is coupled heater driver 120 at all” (App.
Br. 10-11).
However, the Examiner finds that Paolantonio discloses a “[t]hermal
[h]eater 48 with connector” (Ans. 6).
Claim 5 does not place any limitation on what “performance
characteristics” and “common electrical and mechanical connectors” mean,
include, or present. Thus, we give “a group of thermal modules each having
a respective set of performance characteristics and common electrical and
mechanical connectors, each of said thermal modules being configured to be
coupled to the system interface” its broadest reasonable interpretation as a
plurality of heating modules that include engaging members capable of
coupling with other modules, as consistent with claim 5.
Paolantonio discloses that the chassis couples to receive and engage
with a heater assembly (FF 5). We find that Paolantonio’s heater assembly
is capable of coupling with other modules, such as the chassis having the
microprocessor and the communications interface. In particular, we find
that Paolantonio’s heater assembly “includes a selected one of said group of
thermal modules” (claim 5).
Accordingly, we find that Appellants have not shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over
Paolantonio. Further, Appellants present a similar argument for claim 25
(depending from claim 24) having similar claim language; therefore, claim
25 falls with claim 5.
Claims 8-11, 15-19, and 23
Appellants contend that “Friend does not disclose or suggest anything
whatsoever with cameras or security systems” and “Friend does not disclose
Appeal 2010-010607
Application 11/295,091

10
or suggest that the modem 56 includes quick connectors, let alone first and
second quick connectors” (App. Br. 13).
However, the Examiner finds that Paolantonio discloses “quick
disconnects by teaching a plug and play ‘connector’ design in a modular
camera such as having a camera 4 and chassis 6 mate with a second blind
connector inside housing 8” (Ans. 24).
Claim 8 does not place any limitation on what “quick-connector”
means, includes, or presents other than it enables the module to be connected
and disconnected to the interface by hand. Thus, we give “communications
module including: a first quick-connector … and a second quick-connector”
its broadest reasonable interpretation as a communication module that
includes engaging members which are capable of coupling with other
modules, as consistent with claim 8.
As noted supra, Paolantonio discloses that the video surveillance
camera comprises a camera head that electrically couples to the
microprocessor and the communication interface (FF 1). We find that
Paolantonio’s video surveillance camera comprises “a communications
module electrically interconnecting said interface and said controller” (claim
8).
Paolantonio also discloses that the chassis includes positioning
members having a guide channel that engages with a corresponding
alignment flange on the interior of the housing (FF 3). We find that
positioning members comprise engaging members that enable the coupling
with other modules. That is, we find that Paolantonio’s positioning
members and alignment flanges comprise “a first quick-connector enabling
said communications module to be connected to said interface by hand and
Appeal 2010-010607
Application 11/295,091

11
disconnected from said interface by hand” and “a second quick-connector”
(claim 8).
In addition, Friend discloses a portable data terminal having a modem
(FF 6). We find that the modem comprises a communications module. That
is, we find Friend’s modem also comprises “a communications module
electrically interconnecting said interface and said controller” (claim 8).
In view of our claim construction above, we find that the combination
of Paolantonio and Friend at least suggests providing “communications
module including: a first quick-connector … and a second quick-connector”
(claim 8).
Accordingly, we find that Appellants have not shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Paolantonio in view of Friend. Further, Appellants have made similar
arguments for independent claim 16 having similar claim language and
claims 9-11, 15-19, and 23 (depending from claims 8 and 16); therefore,
these claims fall with claim 1.
Claim 2
Appellants contend that “Fitzgibbon does not disclose or suggest that
a camera head, a controller or a communications module of a security
camera includes a current limiting portion,” “[i]nstead, the current limiting
portion … in Fitzgibbon is separate and upstream from the accessory
device” (App. Br. 9).
However, the Examiner finds that “Fitzg[i]bbon teaches a controller
which uses a current limiting device” (Ans. 15).
Claim 2 does not place any limitation on what “in-rush current
limiting device” means, includes, or represents. The Specification discloses
Appeal 2010-010607
Application 11/295,091

12
that current limiting electrical connections prevent an in-rush of current
(Spec. ¶ [0047]). Thus, we give “in-rush current limiting device” its
broadest reasonable interpretation as any current limiting device, as
consistent with the Specification and claim 2.
As noted supra, Paolantonio discloses a communication interface (FF
4). We find that communication interface includes a “communication
module” (claim 2).
In addition, Fitzgibbon discloses an operator that includes a current
limit portion (having at least one current limiting device) which controls
current to additional devices coupled thereto (FF 7). We find that the
current limiting portion comprises a current limiting device. That is, we find
that Fitzgibbon’s current limit portion comprises “in-rush current limiting
device” (claim 2).
In view of our claim construction above, we find that the combination
of Paolantonio and Fitzgibbon at least suggests providing “said
communications modules include an in-rush current limiting device” (claim
2).
Accordingly, we find that Appellants have not shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Paolantonio in view of Fitzgibbon.
Claims 12 and 20
Appellants argue that claims 12 and 20 are patentable over the cited
prior art for the same reasons asserted with respect to claim 2 (App. Br. 15
and 19).
As noted supra, however, we find that the combined teachings of
Paolantonio and Fitzgibbon at least suggest all the features of claim 2. We
Appeal 2010-010607
Application 11/295,091

13
therefore affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 12 and 20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 over Paolantonio in view of Fitzgibbon, further in view of
Friend, for the same reasons noted supra.
Claim 3
Appellants contend that “[w]hile Robb discloses a hot swap structure
… including a current limit device or circuit,” “Robb does not disclose or
suggest anything whatsoever with cameras or security systems” (App. Br. 9).
Appellants assert that “[t]he Examiner has used improper hindsight” (App.
Br. 10).
However, the Examiner finds that “Robb teaches a current limiting
device which has hot swap circuitry” (Ans. 17).
As noted supra, Fitzgibbon discloses an operator that includes a
current limit portion (having at least one current limiting device) (FF 7).
Robb discloses hot swapping circuitry having a current limit
device/circuit (FF 8). We find the hot swap circuitry comprises a hot swap
circuit. That is, we find Robb’s hot swap circuitry represents the “hot swap
circuitry” (claim 3).
We find that the combination of Paolantonio, Fitzgibbon, and Robb at
least suggests providing “in-rush current limiting device comprises hot swap
circuitry” (claim 3).
Accordingly, we find that Appellants have not shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Paolantonio in view of Fitzgibbon and Robb.
Appeal 2010-010607
Application 11/295,091

14
Claims 13 and 21
Appellants argue that claims 13 and 21 are patentable over the cited
prior art for the same reasons asserted with respect to claim 3 (App. Br. 15
and 19).
As noted supra, however, we find that the combined teachings of
Paolantonio, Fitzgibbon, and Robb at least suggest all the features of claim
3. We therefore affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 13 and 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Paolantonio in view of Friend and Fitzgibbon for the
same reasons noted supra.
Claim 4
Appellants contend that “Hoyt does not disclose or suggest anything
whatsoever with cameras or security systems” (App. Br. 10). Appellants
assert that “[t]he Examiner has used improper hindsight” (id.).
However, the Examiner finds that “Hoyt teaches [an] in-rush current
limiting device which comprises a tri-statable signal line” (Ans. 19).
Hoyt discloses an AM logic signal which uses tri-states gate drivers
(FF 9). We find that the AM logic signal comprises a “tri-statable signal
line” (claim 4).
We adopt the Examiner’s finding that the combined teachings of
Paolantonio, Fitzgibbon, and Hoyt at least suggest “in-rush current limiting
device comprises a tri-statable signal line” (Ans. 19-20).
Accordingly, we find that Appellants have not shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Paolantonio in view of Fitzgibbon and Hoyt.
Appeal 2010-010607
Application 11/295,091

15
Claims 14 and 22
Appellants argue that claims 14 and 22 are patentable over the cited
prior art for the same reasons asserted with respect to claim 4 (App. Br. 16
and 19-20).
As noted supra, however, we find that the combined teachings of
Paolantonio, Fitzgibbon, and Hoyt at least suggest all the features of claim
4. We therefore affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 14 and 22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Paolantonio in view of Fitzgibbon and Hoyt, further in
view of Friend, for the same reasons noted supra.
Claims 6 and 26
Appellants contend that “[t]here is no disclosure or suggestion of the
claimed ‘fixed camera head’” (App. Br. 12). Appellants argue that “[u]sing
a mixture of real and fake cameras [as disclosed in Mann] does not disclose
or suggest the ‘group of camera heads’” (id.).
However, the Examiner finds that Paolantonio discloses “a fixed
camera head” (Ans. 21) and that “Mann teaches a surveillance camera
system with an imitation camera head” (Ans. 22).
Paolantonio discloses that the chassis couples to a pan and tilt video
the camera assembly in a fixed orientation (FF 1). We find that
Paolantonio’s camera assembly comprises a “fixed camera” (claim 16).
Mann discloses nonfunctional cameras (FF 10). We find that Mann’s
nonfunctional cameras comprise “an imitation camera head” (claim 6).
We adopt the Examiner’s finding that the combined teachings of
Paolantonio, Blackshear, and Mann at least suggest “group of camera heads
includes … a fixed camera head, and an imitation camera head” as cited in
claim 6 (Ans. 21-22).
Appeal 2010-010607
Application 11/295,091

16
Accordingly, we find that Appellants have not shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Paolantonio in view of Blackshear and Mann. Appellants provide a similar
argument for claim 26 (having similar claim limitations and dependent upon
claim 24); therefore, claim 26 falls with claim 6.

V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 5, 7, 24, and 25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) and claims 2-4, 6, 8-23, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
affirmed.
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

peb