Ex Parte Camens

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 7, 2009

09821176 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 7, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte DOUGLAS M. CAMENS
____________

Appeal 2008-004904
Application 09/821,176
Technology Center 2400
____________

Decided: August 7, 2009
____________

Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, JAY P. LUCAS, and
CAROLYN D. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judges.

BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2008-004904
Application 09/821,176

2

Invention
Appellant’s invention is related to a distributed system for accessing
and controlling a multiplicity of devices (Abstract). A master control device
comprises a peer interface having an embedded web server and host
software (Spec. 6:1-4, 6:17-24; Figure elements 10, 12, 14, 19). A plurality
of linked devices communicate via a network separate from the internet, and
are controlled by the embedded web server of the master control device
(Spec. 6:17-24; Figure elements 21, 22, 23). The plurality of linked devices
each comprise an interface that communicates with the peer interface
module of the master control device allowing control of each linked device
by the embedded web server through the interface (Spec. 6:17-24; Figure
elements 15, 16, 17). A web browser is configured to access the master
control device and allow the web browser to control the plurality of linked
devices through the master control device and directly receive data from
each of the plurality of linked devices (Spec. 7:21-24; Figure elements 25,
26, 27).

Representative Claim
1. A peer distributed, embedded web server system for accessing and
controlling a multiplicity of devices, comprising:
a master control device comprising an embedded web server,
peer interface module, and host software;
a plurality of linked devices that communicate with, and that
are controlled by, said embedded web server of said master control
device, said plurality of linked devices each comprising an interface
Appeal 2008-004904
Application 09/821,176

3
with a network separate from the internet that communicates with the
peer interface module of said master control device to be controlled
by said embedded web server; and
means for providing a user operated web browser for
communicating with said master control device in order to access said
plurality of linked devices, wherein said user operated web browser
controls said plurality of linked devices through said master control
device and said user operated web browser receives data directly from
said plurality of linked devices that have been selected.

Prior Art
Namma 6,182,116 B1 Jan. 30, 2001
Kimmel 6,281,790 B1 Aug. 28, 2001

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Namma and Kimmel.

Claim Groupings
Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide
the appeal on the basis of claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

ISSUE
Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Namma and Kimmel teaches controlling linked devices
through a peer interface module in a peer distributed, embedded web server
system?
Appeal 2008-004904
Application 09/821,176

4

FINDINGS OF FACT
Namma
1. Namma discloses a plurality of servers that can transfer live
video data from respective video cameras via the Internet, and a browser
enabled to receive the streams of video data and generate displayed video
images (Fig. 9; col. 21, ll. 9-15).
2. Server 91 includes a camera control section 916 for receiving
respective streams of video data produced by the video cameras and
acquired via Internet connections from corresponding servers 92 and 93
(Fig. 9; col. 21, ll. 23-30).
3. The camera control section 916 also receives video camera
control commands from browser 94 and transfers the commands to the
appropriate servers (Fig. 9; col. 21, ll. 30-34).
4. The server 91 includes a stored camera name URL linkage file
which relates respective video camera names to corresponding URLs that
can be utilized to send operating commands for controlling the respective
video cameras (col. 21, ll. 35-43).
5. The browser 94 includes a camera operation designation section
947 which enables a user to input operating commands for controlling each
of the video cameras, which might for example include commands for
activating the cameras or panning the cameras in a desired direction (Fig. 9;
col. 21, ll. 55-62).
6. A command is transferred from communication section 11 of
browser 94 to server 91. A connection to server 92 is established by the data
Appeal 2008-004904
Application 09/821,176

5
acquisition section 14, and the command is sent to server 92. (See col. 22, l.
48 to col. 23, l. 18).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Claim Interpretation
During examination, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification, and the language should be
read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary
skill in the art. In re Amer. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364
(Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). The Office must apply the broadest
reasonable meaning to the claim language, taking into account any
definitions presented in the specification. Id. (citing In re Bass, 314 F.3d
575, 577 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).

Obviousness
The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art,
(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, and
(3) the level of skill in the art. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17
(1966). “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).

ANALYSIS
Appellant contends that Namma does not teach a “distributed peer
interface network,” because “[a] peer distributed network is defined by the
Appeal 2008-004904
Application 09/821,176

6
specification of the present invention on page 1, lines 20-26 as extending a
system to allow a server via a single browser to access many devices” (Br.
8). However, Namma extends a system to allow a server via a single
browser to access many devices (FF 1-5). Therefore, the recitation “peer
distributed, embedded web server system” in the preamble of claim 1
includes within its purview the system of Namma that allows a server, via a
single web browser, to access many devices -- even assuming that the
preamble recitation is entitled to weight in the patentability analysis.
Appellant also contends that Namma does not teach a “peer interface
module” (Br. 9). The Examiner finds that the data acquisition section 14
described by Namma is a peer interface module (Ans. 13). Appellant has
provided no evidence or convincing argument to rebut this finding by the
Examiner. At best, Appellant alleges by implication (Br. 9) that a “peer
interface module” precludes all use of Hypertext Transport Protocol
(HTTP), which appears to be contrary to the Summary of Invention in the
Specification and to the instant Figure, containing reference numeral 25. We
are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s reading of the “peer interface
module” limitation on Namma.
Appellant contends that Namma does not teach a peer-to-peer
network. However, this term is not in claim 1 and Appellant provides
insufficient basis for why the term must be read into the claim. Even so, the
network of Namma connects server 91 to servers 92 and 93 (FF 2), which
constitutes a server-to-server, or “peer-to-peer,” network.
Appellant contends that Namma does not teach controlling linked
devices (Br. 10). We disagree and find that Namma teaches controlling
linked devices (FF 5-6).
Appeal 2008-004904
Application 09/821,176

7
Appellant contends that the combination of Namma and Kimmel
requires altering the principle of operation of Kimmel and has no reasonable
expectation of success (Br. 10-12). These arguments are based on the
premise that neither Namma nor Kimmel teaches controlling linked devices.
However, because Namma teaches controlling linked devices (FF 5-6), the
combination of Namma and Kimmel would predictably control linked
devices without any change to the principle of operation of Kimmel.
Because Appellant has not demonstrated any error in the Examiner’s
rejection, we sustain the § 103(a) rejection of claims 1-20.
Appellant reproduces other limitations from the claims in the Appeal
Brief, but alleges error in their rejection by relying on the same position
regarding the supposed deficiencies of Namma and Kimmel that we have
found untenable. Appellant’s additional remarks are not separate arguments
for patentability under the applicable rules. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)
(“A statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be
considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim.”). To the
extent that any of Appellant’s additional remarks in the Appeal Brief could
be considered to rise to the level of providing arguments for separate
patentability, we refer to the Examiner’s findings in the Answer as a
complete response to any such arguments.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Appellant has failed to show error in the Examiner’s finding that the
combination of Namma and Kimmel teaches controlling linked devices
through a peer interface module in a peer distributed, embedded web server
system.
Appeal 2008-004904
Application 09/821,176

8

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20 as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Namma and Kimmel 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).

AFFIRMED

msc

PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
P.O. BOX 3001
BRIARCLIFF MANOR NY 10510