Ex Parte Cilia et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 13, 2018

14254384 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 13, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/254,384 04/16/2014 Andrew Cilia
120607 7590 11/15/2018
Winstead PC (IF)
P.O. Box 131851
Dallas, TX 75313-1851
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
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.
47565-P017Cl 8735
EXAMINER
MIKESKA, NEIL R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2485
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/15/2018 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):
ifdocket@winstead.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDREW CILIA and ROBERT V. VANMAN
Appeal 2018-003 829
Application 14/254,3 84 1
Technology Center 2400
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 17-19, 21, and 35--46. We have jurisdiction over
the pending rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify WatchGuard, Inc. as the real party in interest. (App.
Br. 3.)
Appeal2018-003829
Application 14/254,3 84
THE INVENTION
Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention is directed to video-
recording systems that include split-screen video displays for use with law-
enforcement vehicles. (Spec. 1: 15-17.)
Independent claim 17, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal:
1 7. A system comprising:
a first camera operable to capture omnidirectional images
and send an omnidirectional-image data stream representing the
omnidirectional images;
a second camera operable to capture narrow-view images
and send a narrow-view-image data stream representing the
narrow-view images; and
a video processor coupled to the first camera and the
second camera and operable to, as the omnidirectional-image
data stream and the narrow-view-image data stream are
received:
identify a relevant image portion of at least one of
the omnidirectional-image data stream and the narrow-
view-image data stream and remove image data that is
not contained within the relevant image portion;
form a combined-image data stream using at least
part of the omnidirectional-image data stream and at least
part of the narrow-view-image data stream; and
wherein the combined-image data stream replaces
the removed image data with other image data selected
from at least one of the omnidirectional-image data
stream and the narrow-view-image data stream, wherein
the other image data comprises image data that is
exclusive of the removed image data.
2
Appeal2018-003829
Application 14/254,3 84
REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 17-19, 21, and 35--46 under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Griffith et al. (US 2010/0238327 Al,
pub. Sept. 23, 2010) (hereinafter "Griffith") and Singh et al. (US
2003/0095338 Al, pub. May 22, 2003) (hereinafter "Singh"). (Final Act. 2.)
ISSUE ON APPEAL
Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following
issue2 :
Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Griffith
and Singh teaches or suggests the independent claim 17 limitation,
wherein the combined-image data stream replaces the
removed image data with other image data selected from at
least one of the omnidirectional-image data stream and the
narrow-view-image data stream, wherein the other image data
comprises image data that is exclusive of the removed image
data,
and the commensurate limitation recited in independent claims 37 and 42.
(App. Br. 6-8.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner erred. We disagree with Appellants'
arguments, and we adopt as our own ( 1) the pertinent findings and reasons
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the positions of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Dec. 11, 2017); the Reply
Brief (filed Feb. 27, 2018); the Final Office Action (mailed Feb. 28, 2017);
and the Examiner's Answer (mailed Feb. 16, 2018) for the respective details.
3
Appeal2018-003829
Application 14/254,3 84
set forth by the Examiner in the Action from which this appeal is taken
(Final Act. 2-8) and (2) the corresponding findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal
Brief. (Ans. 3-8.) We concur with the applicable findings and conclusions
reached by the Examiner, and emphasize the following.
In finding the combination of Griffith and Singh teaches or suggests
the claim 1 7 limitation at issue, the Examiner relies on the disclosure of
Griffith in which (1) the masks 60 and 68 block central and peripheral image
portions from the wide and narrow images, respectively, and (2) the central
portion 76 of the combined image 66 is taken from the narrow POV (field-
of-view) image 52 while the peripheral portion 78 of the combined image 66
is taken from the wide POV image 50. (Final Act. 2-3; Griffith ,r 24, Fig.
2.)
Appellants argue that Griffith uses a dual sensor in which "the
combined image 66 forms a single congruent image of the wide POV image
50 and the narrow POV image 52" (App. Br. 7, emphasis in original; see
also App. Br. 6, quoting Griffith ,r 23), and "there appears to be no
disclosure in Griffith that the masked portions of the images are not part of
the combined image." (App. Br. 7, emphasis in original.) Appellants
contend that "Griffith fails to disclose 'the combined-image data stream
replaces the removed image data with other image data ... the other image
data comprises image data that is exclusive of the removed image data' as
recited by amended independent claim 17." (App. Br. 7, emphasis in
original.)
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that the claimed "other image
data" encompasses Griffith's "narrow POV image 52, [which] has
4
Appeal2018-003829
Application 14/254,3 84
undergone a down-sampling operation, and is from an exclusive data path
and imaging sensor, as illustrated in fig. 2," whereas the claimed "removed
image data" encompasses Griffith's wide POV image data, "while the
removed image data is wide POV image data, which originates from another
exclusive path." (Final Act. 3, citing Griffith ,r 24, Fig. 2.) Appellants do
not specifically address and challenge the Examiner's findings. The
Examiner broadly and reasonably interprets the claim terms "other image
data," "removed image data," and "exclusive." (See Ans. 7-8.) Appellants
point to no special meanings in the disclosure regarding the claim terms;
particularly, Appellants do not argue a meaning for "exclusive" that would
contradict the Examiner's interpretation. 3
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 17 and independent claims 37 and 42 commensurate in scope, as well
as dependent claims 18, 19, 21, 35, 36, 38--41, and 43--46 not argued
separately.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 17-19, 21, and 35--46 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.13 6( a )(1 )(iv).
AFFIRMED
3 We note that the term "exclusive" was added to the independent claims in
an Amendment filed Feb. 2, 2017, with no explanation regarding its support
in the disclosure.
5