Ex Parte Dharwada et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 20, 201613013247 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 20, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/013,247 92689 7590 HONEYWELL/SLW Patent Services 115 Tabor Road P.O. Box 377 01125/2011 09/22/2016 MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Pallavi Dharwada 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. H0028636.216471 8397 EXAMINER KARIM, ZIAUL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2127 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/22/2016 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): patentservices-us@honeywell.com uspto@slwip.com SLW@blackhillsip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PALLA VI DHARW ADA and JASON LABERGE Appeal2015-007413 Application 13/013,247 Technology Center 2100 Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, AARON W. MOORE, and DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2015-007413 Application 13/013,247 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. THE INVENTION The application is directed to "a system and method for automatically selecting sensors." (Spec. i-f 1.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative: 1. A system comprising: a display unit coupled to a computer processor and configured to display a map or model of an area monitored by one or more sensors and to display a location and orientation of the one or more sensors in the monitored area; a computer processor configured to receive, via contacting a screen surface of the display unit, a region or path within the monitored area, wherein the contacting the display unit comprises a drawing of the region or path on the screen surface of the display unit by an operator; a computer processor configured to orient the one or more sensors towards the path or region in response to the drawing on the screen surface of the display unit; and a computer processor configured to display the monitored area on the display unit after the orienting of the one or more sensors. 1 Appellants identify Honeywell International Inc. as the real party in interest. (See App. Br. 2.) 2 Appeal2015-007413 Application 13/013,247 THE REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Morgan Brunetti et al. Cressy et al. US 4,992,866 Feb. 12, 1991 US 2005/0225634 Al Oct. 13, 2005 US 7,995,096 Bl Aug. 9, 2011 THE REJECTIONS 1. Claims 1---6 and 8-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Brunetti and Morgan. (See Final Act. 3-12.) 2. Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Brunetti, Morgan, and Cressy. (See Final Act. 12-13.) APPELLANTS' CONTENTIONS Appellants argue that the rejections are in error because the combination fails to teach or suggest "a computer processor configured to receive, via contacting a screen surface of a display unit, a region or path within a monitored area, wherein the contacting the display unit comprises a drawing of the region or path on the screen surface of the display unit by an operator," as recited in claim 1, and as similarly recited in independent claims 6 and 15. (App. Br. 7.) 3 Appeal2015-007413 Application 13/013,247 ANALYSIS The Examiner finds the subject language satisfied in Morgan, which teaches as follows: A primary aspect of the preferred embodiment is the use of a graphics user interface screen 30 between the user and the pro- cessor 20. Referring to FIG. 2, the interface screen 30 is designed to provide a graphical representation (similar to a "map") of the area that a user chooses to view. Depending on what mode the network is operating in, the user can simply point to a specific area on the "map" and the processor 20 will determine which camera has the best view of that specific area and select that view to be displayed on one of the monitors. Therefore, instead of having to deal with switches, buttons and knobs, the user merely has to point to an area on the touch screen 30 to have a view of the area displayed. This arrangement significant[ly] reduces the amount of time necessary to locate and track a particular scene because only minimal thought process is required. The user simply points to the desired area on the screen. That area is instantaneously displayed on a screen. (Morgan 2:63-3:13.) Appellants argue that "simply pointing to an area on a screen as in Morgan is not a disclosure of a drawing of a region or path on a screen by an operator, as is recited in the claims," because "[a] pointing is a simple, single touch of the screen," whereas "[t]he terms 'draw' and 'drawing' mean to make a picture or image by making lines on a surface." (App. Br. 7, citing www.merriam-webster.com.) Appellants further assert that "a simple pointing to an area of a screen does not make a picture or image by making a line on the screen" and that "a drawing requires movement along the screen while touching the screen, which is more than a simple touch, and which requires different processing logic than a simple touch." (Id.) 4 Appeal2015-007413 Application 13/013,247 Appellants, thus, appear to argue that the term "drawing," as claimed, requires the making or rendering of a picture or image on the screen. (Id.) We are not persuaded of error by Appellants' arguments. In particular, we do not agree that the claims require that a "picture or image" be rendered on the screen. The Specification simply states "the operator 120 uses one or more gestures with his or her hand to define a region of interest 130." (Spec. i-f 13.) Nowhere does it describe representing that gesture on the screen. 2 We thus conclude that the claims do not require the path or region to be mirrored on the display. The remaining question, then, is whether Morgan's disclosure of touching a single point, as opposed to tracing a line or other shape, would suffice to meet the claim language. We join the Examiner in concluding that it would, as we do not discern any basis for distinguishing, in this context, a point indicated by a finger and, for example, a short line or small circle traced by that same finger. Because we conclude that Morgan does teach "receiv[ing], via contacting a screen surface of a display unit, a region or path within a monitored area, wherein the contacting the display unit comprises a drawing of the region or path on the screen surface of the display unit by an operator," as recited in claim 1 and as similarly recited in claims 6 and 15, we sustain the rejections of claims 1-20. 2 For example, in Figure 2 the region of interest 130 is indicated by semi- circular swiping gesture, which is represented in the figure by an arrow showing the path of the finger movement, but is not shown as being drawn on the map. 5 Appeal2015-007413 Application 13/013,247 DECISION The rejections of claims 1-20 are 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)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation