Ex Parte Corbin

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 19, 2003

08924865 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 19, 2003)

1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was
not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the
Board.
Paper No. 23
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte SCOTT ALAN CORBIN
__________
Appeal No. 2001-1815
Application 08/924,865
___________
ON BRIEF
___________
Before THOMAS, BARRETT, and FLEMING, Administrative Patent
Judges.
FLEMING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 1 through 7, all of the claims pending in the instant
application.
Invention
The invention relates to a camera positioning system,
typified by a stationary mounted camera having an adjustable
field of view. See page 1 of Appellant’s specification. Figure
Appeal No. 2001-1815
Application 08/924,865
2
1 shows a camera positioning system situated in a typical
security environment. A camera 110 is mounted in an enclosure
120 which is situated in an overhead structure 190, such as a
carport adjacent a parking area. See page 4 of Appellant’s
specification. The camera’s angle of view can be adjusted by
changing the camera’s magnification or level of zoom. See page 5
of Appellant’s specification. The combination of line of sight
and angle of view determines a camera’s field of view. See page
5 of Appellant’s specification. Figure 1 shows vehicles 181,
182, and 183 as well as a person 184 within the area potentially
viewable by the camera 110. Whether the objects are actually
within the view of the camera is determined by the camera’s field
of view, which is determined by its line of sight and its angle
of view. Figure 1 shows the camera 110 being positioned with a
line of sight L. About the line of sight L are three angles of
view A, B, and C. If the camera has an angle of view A, the
camera’s field of view will encompass the items between lines A1
and A2. Thus, at angle of view A, the vehicle 181 and the person
184 are not in the view of the camera. At angle of view B, the
camera’s field of view encompasses the items between B1 and B2,
and therefore each of the vehicles 181, 182, and 183 will be in
Appeal No. 2001-1815
Application 08/924,865
3
the view of the camera. Also within the view of the camera at
angle of view B is the edge 191 of the overhead structure 190.
See page 6 of Appellant’s specification.
Conventionally, camera positioning systems contain one or
more “stops” as to the extent of rotation of the camera, to
prevent the camera’s field of view from extending significantly
into areas having no useful security information. If such a stop
were employed, the field of view at angle of view B could be
considered optimal with regard to the amount of useful security
information at this angle of view, because only a minimal portion
of the overhead structure 190 is present in the field of view.
See page 8 of Appellant’s specification. As the angle of view
changes, the stops which limit the rotation of the camera are set
to effect the appropriate lines of sight. For example, in figure
1, the stops will be set to lines of sight L and L’, respectively
when the camera is set to angles of views B and C. See page 9 of
Appellant’s specification.
Figure 4 shows a flowchart for dynamically adjusting a
camera positioning stop limit based upon a geometric model. The
determination of the stop corresponding to a particular angle of
view can be accomplished algorithmically or empirically. The
Appeal No. 2001-1815
Application 08/924,865
4
appropriate line of sight limit can be determined by bisecting
the angle of view when the extent of the view is aligned with the
edge of the bounding area. Figure 4 shows a flowchart for
effecting this algorithmic determination for determining the
predetermined stop. See page 12 of Appellant’s specification.
Figure 5 shows a flowchart for dynamically adjusting a
camera positioning stop limit based upon a set of calibration
data. In figure 5a, the user calibrates the positioning system
for optimized views. See page 15 of Appellant’s specification.
In general, any number of calibration points can be entered, but
the minimum number of calibration points is two. See page 16 of
Appellant’s specification.
Independent claim 1, present in the application, is
reproduced as follows:
1. A camera positioning system for positioning a camera
with an adjustable field of view, which camera positioning system
minimizes the inclusion of a bounding area within said field of
view, said bounding area having a bounding edge,
said camera having a line of sight and an angle of view,
said line of sight and angle of view defining said camera’s field
of view,
said field or view having a definable perimeter having
at least one perimeter edge,
Appeal No. 2001-1815
Application 08/924,865
5
said camera positioning system comprising:
means for adjusting said camera’s angle of view,
means for adjusting said camera’s line of sight, said
camera’s line of sight being limited at a predetermined stop, and
means for determining said predetermined stop, said
predetermined stop being determined in dependence upon said angle
of view,
such that at said predetermined stop, said perimeter
edge of said field of view coincides with said bounding edge
within said field of view.
References
The reference relied on by the Examiner is as follows:
Oyashiki et al. (Oyashiki) 5,808,670 Sept. 15, 1998
(Filed Sept. 6, 1995)
Rejection at Issue
Claims 1 through 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
being anticipated by Oyashiki.
OPINION
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on
appeal, the Examiner’s rejection and the arguments of Appellant
and Examiner, for the reasons stated infra, we reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Appeal No. 2001-1815
Application 08/924,865
6
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can
be found only if the prior art reference discloses every element
of the claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136,
138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann Maschinenfasrik GMBH v.
American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481,
485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
“Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, expressly or under principles of inherency,
each and every element of a claimed invention.” RCA Corp. v.
Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ
385, 388 (Fed. Cir.), cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984),
citing Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp. 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ
781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Furthermore, “[t]o establish
inherency, the extrinsic evidence ‘must make clear that the
missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing
described in the reference, and that it would be so recognized by
person of ordinary skill.’” In re Robertson, Slip Op 98-1270
(Fed. Cir. February 25, 1999) citing Continental Can Co. v.
Monsanto Co., 948 F.3d 1264, 1268, 20 USPQ2d 1746, 1749 (Fed.
Cir. 1991). “Inherency, however, may not be established by
probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain
Appeal No. 2001-1815
Application 08/924,865
7
thing may result for a give set of circumstances is not
sufficient.” Id. Citing Continental Can Co., 948 F.3d at 1269,
20 USPQ2d at 1749 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Appellant argues that Oyashiki fails to anticipate all the
limitations recited in Appellant’s claims. Appellant argues that
Oyashiki neither expressly nor impliedly teaches “camera’s line
of sight being limited at a predetermined stop,” as recited in
claims 1-6. Furthermore, Appellant argues that Oyashiki neither
expressly nor impliedly teaches “limiting the position of the
[sic, said] camera to the [sic, said] predetermined stop limit,”
as recited in claim 7. See pages 4 and 5 of Appellant’s brief.
As pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first
determine the scope of the claim. “[T]he name of the game is the
claim.” In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523,
1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
We must determine what is meant by “predetermined stop.”
For interpretation of this claim limitation, we refer to
Appellant’s specification. The specification makes clear that
the stops are intended to limit the rotation of the camera and
that the stops are calculated and set before the normal operation
of the camera. This is evidenced from the disclosure of
Appeal No. 2001-1815
Application 08/924,865
8
flowcharts found in figures 4 and 5. Furthermore, Appellant
argues that the reason for using the “predetermined stop” of the
present invention is to avoid checking whether every new
monitoring point is in the prohibition area. See page 5 of
Appellant’s brief.
Turning to Oyashiki, we find that Oyashiki teaches that the
stops are calculated every time a new monitoring point is
determined. In particular, in column 6, lines 22 through 39, and
figures 9 and 10, Oyashiki clearly discloses that it is
determined whether or not the new monitoring point is in a
prohibited area. In particular, Oyashiki teaches in column 6,
lines 28 through 33, that if it is determined that the
coordinates are in the monitoring prohibition area, the
subsequent operation is stopped, and an alarm is generated or
likewise attention is invoked. Alternately, the revolution angle
is corrected as described in step S8. Therefore, Oyashiki does
not teach that the “camera’s line sight being limited at a
predetermined stop” as recited in Appellant’s claims 1 through 6
nor does Oyashiki teach “limiting the position of said camera to
said predetermined stop limit” as recited in Appellant’s claim 7.
Appeal No. 2001-1815
Application 08/924,865
9
In view of the foregoing, we have not sustained the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
REVERSED
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge )
MRF:pgg
Corporation Patent Counsel
Appeal No. 2001-1815
Application 08/924,865
10
US Philips Corporation
580 White Plains Road
Tarrytown, NY 10591