Ex Parte Cilia et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 13, 201814254384 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 13, 2018) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation