Ex Parte Brassil

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 25, 2013

11028738 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

____________

Ex parte JOHN THOMAS BRASSIL

____________

Appeal 2011-013461
Application 11/028,738
Technology Center 2400
____________

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

GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-013461
Application 11/028,738

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1-31 and 33-42 (App. Br. 3). Claim 32 was cancelled (id.). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
The Invention
Exemplary Claim 1 follows:

1. A method of maintaining privacy of a subject of a recording,
comprising:

activating a privacy enablement device (PED) to enable a level
of privacy of the subject, wherein the level of privacy is
selected from a plurality of levels of privacy;

receiving, from the PED, a location of at least one subject from
the PED, wherein at least one subject carries the PED;

providing the location of the subject to a database;

receiving a location of a recording device, from the recording
device, when a recording is made;

providing the location of the recording device to the database;

comparing the location of at least one subject with the location
of the recording device;

determining from the comparison whether at least one subject is
in the recording; and

limiting use of the recording by applying the level of privacy of
the subject if the recording includes said subject that uses the
PED.
Appeal 2011-013461
Application 11/028,738

3
Claims 1-16, 18, 20-31, 33, 34, 37-39, 41 and 42 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Rankin (U.S. Patent
Application Publication No. 2003/0013459) in view of Fernandez (U.S.
Patent No. 6,697,103) (Ans. 4-10).
Claims 17, 19, 35, 36, and 40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
as being unpatentable over Rankin in view of Fernandez and Mehrotra (U.S.
Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0064384) (Ans. 10-11).

ISSUES
Appellant’s responses to the Examiner’s positions present the
following issues:
1. Does the combination of Rankin and Fernandez teach or
suggest determining “comparing the location of at least one subject with the
location of the recording device; [and] determining from the comparison
whether at least one subject is in the recording,” as recited in independent
claim 1 and as similarly recited in independent claims 20, 33, and 38?
2. Does the combination of Rankin and Fernandez teach or
suggest “activating a privacy enablement device (PED) to enable a level of
the privacy of the subject, wherein the level of privacy is selected from a
plurality of levels of privacy,” as recited in independent claim 1 and as
similarly recited in independent claims 20, 28, 33, and 38?

ANALYSIS
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claim 1 as obvious because Rankin does not teach or suggest comparing the
locations of the subject and recording device to determine if the subject is in
Appeal 2011-013461
Application 11/028,738

4
the recording (App. Br. 12). The Examiner reasoned that Rankin teaches
this claim limitation because it discloses correlating the user’s location with
the location of the recording device (Ans. 13).
Rankin, however, discloses that “[s]ensor data captured by the
equipment 50-80 might be correlated later by the central server 40 with the
user’s location and activity recordings. Such an arrangement enables a heart
rate trace of the user to be shown alongside their video recording, or the
highlighting of a users most frightened experience at a certain point on a ride
in subsequent social activities” (¶ [0028]). That is, Rankin discloses
correlating sensor data with the user’s location rather than comparing the
location of the user or subject with the location of the recording device to
determine whether the subject is in the recording, as required by claim 1.
Appellant also contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting
independent claim 1 as obvious because Fernandez does not teach or suggest
“activating a privacy enablement device to select a priority level. Instead, in
Fernandez, an area is either monitored or not monitored, e.g., placing or not
placing cameras in the area” (App. Br. 13). The Examiner reasoned that
Fernandez teaches this claim limitation because it discloses at column 19,
lines 42-47, a “monitoring system (see fig. 1) wherein the level of privacy
(see ‘individual privacy’) is selected from a plurality of levels of privacy
(e.g. see privacy levels such as sensitivity, objection to being monitored,
certain locations are omitted, names, class and total number)” (Ans. 13).
The portion of Fernandez cited by the Examiner, however, discloses
only that “[t]o address potential individual privacy sensitivity or objection to
being monitored, certain locations may be omitted from detection, or require
approval prior to or while being monitored. Additionally, monitored
Appeal 2011-013461
Application 11/028,738

5
object(s) may be provided current list of monitoring user source names”
(col. 19, ll. 42-47). That is, although Fernandez mentions omitting locations
from detection or requiring monitoring approval, it does not teach selecting a
privacy level from many privacy levels, as required by claim 1.
Accordingly, we find error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claim 1 as well as claims 2-19 dependent therefrom. Because
each of independent claims 20, 28, 33, and 38 also require at least one of the
two claim limitations that is not taught by Rankin or Fernandez, we also find
error in the Examiner’s rejection of those claims as well as the claims
dependent therefrom (i.e., claims 21-27, 29-31, 34-37, and 39-42).

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-31 and 33-42
as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

REVERSED

peb