Ex Parte Geng

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 16, 2009

10215688 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 16, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte Z. JASON GENG
_____________

Appeal 2009-003203
Application 10/215,688
Technology Center 2600
______________

Decided: November 16, 2009
_______________

Before, ROBERT E. NAPPI, KARL D. EASTHOM, and
ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-003203
Application 10/215,688

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1-4, 7, 9, 11-16, 18, 19, 21-23, and 25-29.1 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part the Examiner’s rejections of these claims.

INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method and apparatus for a video
surveillance system that uses an omni-directional camera and a high-
resolution camera together. The omni-directional camera identifies objects
or events of interest and the high-resolution camera focuses in on those
objects or events of interest. See Spec: 1-3. Claim 12 is representative of
the invention and reproduced below:
12. A method of operating a surveillance system comprising:
continuously receiving output from an omni-directional
camera comprising an imaging unit optically coupled to a
convex mirror;
analyzing said output to identify points of interest;
obtaining higher-resolution images of identified points of
interest using at least one higher-resolution camera; and
simultaneously displaying higher-resolution images from
said at least one higher-resolution camera in combination with
an omni-directional image output by said omni-directional
camera.

1 Claims 6, 17, and 20 were cancelled in an Amendment After Non-Final,
filed October 12, 2005. Claims 5 and 10 were cancelled in a Request for
Continued Examination, filed March 9, 2006. Claims 8 and 24 were
cancelled in an Amendment After Non-Final, filed August 31, 2006.
2
Appeal 2009-003203
Application 10/215,688

REFERENCES
Velger US 5,235,513 Aug. 10, 1993

Korein US 6,226,035 B1 May 1, 2001

Ito US 6,404,455 B1 Jun. 11, 2002
(filed May 14, 1998)

Rui US 2002/0191071 A1 Dec. 19, 2002
(filed Jun. 14, 2001)

Park US 6,738,073 B2 May 18, 2004
(filed Apr. 30, 2002)

Hashimoto US 6,879,338 B1 Apr. 12, 2005
(filed Mar. 31, 2000)

Greiffenhagen US 7,006,950 B1 Feb. 28, 2006
(filed Jun. 12, 2000)

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 1-4, 9, 11, and 25-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Greiffenhagen in view of Hashimoto and Park.
Ans. 3-5.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Greiffenhagen in view of Hashimoto, Park, and Rui. Ans.
4.
Claims 12-13, 16, 18, 19, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Greiffenhagen in view of Hashimoto.
Ans. 4.
3
Appeal 2009-003203
Application 10/215,688

Claims 14 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Greiffenhagen in view of Hashimoto and Ito. Ans. 4.
Claims 21-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Greiffenhagen in view of Hashimoto, Park, and Velger.
Ans. 4-5.
Claims 28-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Greiffenhagen in view of Hashimoto and Korein. Ans. 5.

ISSUES
Rejection of claims 1-4, 9, 11, and 25-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Greiffenhagen in view of Hashimoto and Park

Independent claim 1
Appellant argues on pages 9-13 of the Appeal Brief and pages 2-9 of
the Reply Brief that the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 is in
error. Appellant argues that the Examiner has failed to show that Park is
valid prior art.
Thus, with respect to independent claim 1, Appellant’s contention
presents us with the issue: Has the Examiner shown that Park is valid prior
art?
Claims 2-4, 9, 11, and 25-26
Appellant argues on pages 13 and 15-16 of the Appeal Brief and
pages 9 and 11-12 of the Reply Brief that the Examiner’s rejection of claims
2-4, 9, 11, and 25-26 is in error. Appellant reasons that claims 2-4, 9, 11,
and 25-26 are allowable based upon their dependency on claim 1. App. Br.
4
Appeal 2009-003203
Application 10/215,688

13; Reply Br. 9. Thus, Appellant’s arguments with respect to the rejection
of claims 2-4, 9, 11, and 25-26 present us with the same issue as claim 1.
Rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Greiffenhagen in view of Hashimoto, Park, and Rui

Appellant argues on page 16 of the Appeal Brief and page 11 of the
Reply Brief that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7 is in error. Appellant
reasons that claim 7 is allowable based upon its dependency on claim 1.
App. Br. 16; Reply Br. 11. Thus, Appellant’s arguments with respect to the
rejection of claim 7 presents us with the same issue as claim 1.
Rejection of claims 12-13, 16, 18, 19, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Greiffenhagen in view of Hashimoto

Independent claim 12
Appellant argues on pages 14-15 of the Appeal Brief and pages 9-10
of the Reply Brief that the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 12 is
in error. Appellant argues that neither reference discloses displaying high-
resolution images with an omni-directional image simultaneously. App. Br.
14-15; Reply Br. 9-10.
Thus, with respect to independent claim 12, Appellant’s contention
presents us with the issue: Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in
finding that Greiffenhagen in view of Hashimoto teaches simultaneously
displaying higher-resolution images in combination with an omni-directional
image?

5
Appeal 2009-003203
Application 10/215,688

Claims 13, 18, 19, and 27
Appellant argues on pages 14-15 of the Appeal Brief and pages 9-10
of the Reply Brief that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 12-13, 18, 19, and
27 is in error. Appellant reasons that claims 13, 18, 19, and 27 are allowable
based upon their dependency on claim 12. App. Br. 15; Reply Br. 10. Thus,
Appellant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 13, 18, 19, and
27 present us with the same issue as claim 12.
Claim 16
Appellant argues on pages 15-16 of the Appeal Brief and pages 10-11
of the Reply Brief that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 16 is in error.
Appellant reasons that claim 16 is allowable based upon its dependency on
claim 12. App. Br. 15; Reply Br. 10. Additionally, Appellant argues that
none of the references disclose simultaneously displaying a number of
higher-resolution images in combination with an omni-directional image.
Thus, with respect to claim 16, Appellant’s contention presents us
with the same issue as claim 12 and the additional issue: Has Appellant
shown that the Examiner erred in finding that Greiffenhagen in view of
Hashimoto teaches displaying a number of higher-resolution images in
combination with an omni-directional image?
Rejection of claims 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Greiffenhagen in view of Hashimoto and Ito

Appellant argues on page 16 of the Appeal Brief and page 11 of the
Reply Brief that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 14 and 15 is in error.
Appellant reasons that claims 14 and 15 are allowable based upon their
dependency on claim 12. App. Br. 16; Reply Br. 11. Thus, Appellant’s
6
Appeal 2009-003203
Application 10/215,688

arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 14 and 15 present us with
the same issue as claim 12.
Rejection of claims 21-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Greiffenhagen in view of Hashimoto, Park, and Velger

Appellant argues on page 16 of the Appeal Brief and page 11 of the
Reply Brief that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 21-23 is in error.
Appellant reasons that claims 21-23 are allowable based upon their
dependency on claim 12. App. Br. 16; Reply Br. 11. Thus, Appellant’s
arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 14 and 15 present us with
the same issue as claim 12.
Rejection of claims 28-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Greiffenhagen in view of Hashimoto and Korein

Appellant argues on pages 16-17 of the Appeal Brief and page 12 of
the Reply Brief that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 28-29 is in error. We
select claim 28 as representative of the group comprising claims 28-29 since
Appellant did not separately argue these claims with particularity. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Appellant reasons that claim 28 is allowable
based upon its dependency on claim 12. App. Br. 16-17; Reply Br. 12.
Appellant additionally argues that none of the references disclose mounting
an omni-directional camera and a higher-resolution camera coaxially. App.
Br. 17; Reply Br. 12.
Thus, Appellant’s arguments with respect to the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 28 present us with the same issue as claim 12 and the additional
issue: Has the Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
Greiffenhagen in view of Hashimoto and Korein teach an omni-directional
camera and a higher-resolution camera mounted co-axially?
7
Appeal 2009-003203
Application 10/215,688

FINDINGS OF FACT
Greiffenhagen
1. Greiffenhagen discloses a surveillance system that includes an
omni-camera and a high-resolution foveal camera. Col. 4, ll. 59-62
and Fig. 2.
2. The omni-camera uses a parabolic mirror to see simultaneously in
all directions. In addition, the omni-camera is used to detect an
individual and his/her location within an area. Col. 4, ll. 47-49 and
59-62 and Fig. 2.
3. Once the omni-camera detects an individual, the foveal camera is
used to zoom in and take a high-resolution image of the
individual’s face. Col. 4, ll. 17-20 and 59-62, col. 5, ll. 2-8 and
Fig. 2.
Hashimoto
4. Hashimoto discloses an image capturing system used to display a
high resolution environment map. Col. 1, l. 15 and col. 7, ll. 63-
66.
5. The system comprises equatorial and polar cameras mounted
together that are used to capture a 360 degree field of view. Each
high-resolution camera captures a particular field of view and each
image is displayed to form a high resolution environment map.
Col. 4, ll. 19-20, col. 5, ll. 7-9, col. 7, ll. 63-66, and Fig. 5(a).

8
Appeal 2009-003203
Application 10/215,688

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
On the issue of obviousness, the Supreme Court has stated that “[t]he
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).
“[W]hen the question is whether a patent claiming the combination of
elements of prior art is obvious,” the answer depends on “whether the
improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according
to their established functions.” Id. at 417.
The Examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case
of obviousness, and Appellant has the burden of presenting a rebuttal to the
prima facie case. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Appellant has the burden, on appeal to the Board, to demonstrate error in the
Examiner’s position. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86 (Fed. Cir.
2006).

ANALYSIS
Rejection of claims 1-4, 9, 11, and 25-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Greiffenhagen in view of Hashimoto and Park

Independent claim 1
Appellant’s contention has persuaded us that the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 1 is in error. Appellant argues “Park is also a continuation-in-part
of a large number of other previous applications, some of which predate
Appellant’s priority date and some of which do not. In any event, the
burden is on the Examiner in the first instance to sort out this history of Park
and demonstrate that the subject matter in Park on which the Examiner relies
9
Appeal 2009-003203
Application 10/215,688

was of record in a parent application prior to Appellant’s priority date.”
App. Br. 9. We agree.
The Examiner finds that the Park reference is a continuation of an
application (09/310,715) that was filed on May 12, 1999 and is now patent
number 6,337,683. Ans. 6. In response, Appellant argues that Park is not a
continuation of application 09/310,715, but is rather a continuation-in-part of
application 10/003,399 that is a continuation of application 09/310,715.
Reply Br. 3. We agree with Appellant. As a result, the Examiner should
have provided evidence to show that application 09/310,715 contains the
same limitations relied on in Park. Since the Examiner has not shown that
Park contains the same limitations, we will not sustain the rejection of claim
1.
Claims 2-4, 9, 11, and 25-26
Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 2-4, 9, 11, and 25-26. Claims 2-4, 9, 11, and 25-26
ultimately depend upon claim 1 and as such, include the same limitations
discussed supra with respect to claim 1. Appellant’s arguments present the
same issues discussed with respect to claim 1. App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 9.
Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2-4, 9, 11,
and 25-26 for the reasons discussed supra with respect to claim 1.
Rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Greiffenhagen in view of Hashimoto, Park, and Rui
Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 7. Claim 7 ultimately depends upon claim 1 and as such,
includes the same limitations discussed supra with respect to claim 1.
Appellant’s arguments present the same issues discussed with respect to
10
Appeal 2009-003203
Application 10/215,688

claim 1. App. Br. 16; Reply Br. 11. Therefore, we will not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 7 for the reasons discussed supra with respect
to claim 1.
Rejection of claims 12-13, 16, 18, 19, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Greiffenhagen in view of Hashimoto

Independent claim 12
Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 12. Independent claim 12 recites
“simultaneously displaying higher-resolution images from said at least one
higher-resolution camera in combination with an omni-directional image
output by said omni-directional camera.” Appellant argues that Hashimoto
does not suggest one camera that outputs a higher-resolution image than
another camera. App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 9-10. The Examiner finds that the
combination of Greiffenhagen and Hashimoto teaches this limitation. Ans.
6-7. We agree with the Examiner since Appellant fails to consider the
combination of the references.
While we agree that Hashimoto does not disclose a system wherein
one camera takes a higher resolution image than another camera, we do not
find this argument to be persuasive. The Hashimoto reference displays
multiple images from high resolution equatorial and polar cameras. FF 5.
These images are displayed to the user to form a high resolution map with a
360 degree view. FF 5. The Greiffenhagen reference uses an omni-camera
in order to monitor and locate an individual within a particular area. FF 2.
Once an individual is located, a foveal camera is used to zoom in on the
individual and take a high-resolution image of the individual’s face. FF 3.
Therefore, Greiffenhagen discloses a system that displays both an omni-
11
Appeal 2009-003203
Application 10/215,688

image and a foveal camera image, which is a higher-resolution image than
the omni-image. While the Hashimoto reference is not particularly
necessary to meet the claim limitation, Hashimoto is used to show that it is
known in the art to show several images at a time. Therefore, we consider
using Greiffenhagen’s omni-camera and high-resolution foveal camera with
Hashimoto’s ability to display images from several cameras at once as
nothing more than using a known device to perform its known function of
displaying multiple images. As such, we find that the combination of
Greiffenhagen with Hashimoto yields the predictable result of displaying
images of different resolutions on one screen and we are not persuaded by
Appellant’s arguments.
Claims 13, 18, 19, and 27
Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 13, 18, 19, and 27. Appellant’s arguments
that the rejection of these claims is in error for the reasons discussed with
respect to claim 12 is not persuasive for the reasons discussed supra with
respect to claim 12. Claims 13, 18, 19, and 27 ultimately depend upon claim
12. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 13, 18, 19, and
27.
Claim 16
Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 16. Claim 16 ultimately depends upon claim
12. Appellant’s arguments present the same issues discussed with respect to
claim 12. App. Br. 15; Reply Br. 10. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 16 for the reasons discussed supra with respect to claim
12. In addition, Appellant argues that neither reference discloses
12
Appeal 2009-003203
Application 10/215,688

“displaying higher-resolution images from a number of higher-resolution
cameras” as required by claim 16 since Hashimoto discloses only a single
omni-directional image. App. Br. 15; Reply Br. 10. However, as noted
above in regards to claim 12, we found that Greiffenhagen and Hashimoto
disclose displaying images of different resolutions on one screen from an
omni-camera and a high-resolution foveal camera. In addition, Hashimoto
discloses multiple equatorial and polar cameras mounted together each with
the ability to obtain a high-resolution image. FF 5. Therefore, we consider
using Greiffenhagen’s omni-camera and high-resolution foveal camera with
Hashimoto’s multiple cameras and ability to display images from several
cameras at once as nothing more than using a known device to perform its
known function of displaying multiple images from multiple cameras. As
such, we find that the combination of Greiffenhagen with Hashimoto yields
the predictable result of displaying multiple high-resolution images with a
lower-resolution image on one screen and we are not persuaded by
Appellant’s arguments.

Rejection of claims 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Greiffenhagen in view of Hashimoto and Ito

Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 14 and 15. Claims 14 and 15 ultimately
depend upon claim 12 and as such, include the same limitations discussed
supra with respect to claim 12. Appellant’s arguments present the same
issues discussed with respect to claim 12. App. Br. 16; Reply Br. 11.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 14 and 15 for the
reasons discussed supra with respect to claim 12.
13
Appeal 2009-003203
Application 10/215,688

Rejection of claims 21-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Greiffenhagen in view of Hashimoto, Park, and Velger

Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 21-23. Claims 21-23 ultimately depend upon
claim 12 and as such, include the same limitations discussed supra with
respect to claim 12. Appellant’s arguments present the same issues
discussed with respect to claim 12.2 App. Br. 16; Reply Br. 11. Therefore,
we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 21-23 for the reasons
discussed supra with respect to claim 12.
Rejection of claims 28-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Greiffenhagen in view of Hashimoto and Korein

Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 28. Claim 28 ultimately depends upon claim
12. Appellant’s arguments present the same issues discussed with respect to
claim 12. App. Br. 16-17; Reply Br. 12. Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 28 and 29 that is grouped with claim 28 for
the reasons discussed supra with respect to claim 12.
In addition, Appellant argues that none of the references teach the
claim limitations of claim 28. App. Br. 17; Reply Br. 12. Claim 28 recites
“mounting said omni-directional camera and said higher-resolution camera
co-axially.” Thus, the scope of the claim merely requires that the omni-
directional camera and the high resolution camera be mounted on the same

2 Although not indicated or argued by Appellant, we note that the Examiner
indicates that the Park reference is used to reject claims 21-23. Office
Action of 8/6/2007, pg. 12. Upon review, the only limitation Park is used to
teach (monitoring a flight deck of an aircraft carrier) is disclosed by the
Velger reference. Office Action of 8/6/2007, pg. 12.
14
Appeal 2009-003203
Application 10/215,688

axis. The Examiner has found that Hashimoto teaches the co-axial
limitation and when combined with the teachings of Greiffenhagen and
Korein the limitations of claim 28 are taught. Ans. 9-10. Appellant has not
addressed these findings by the Examiner nor has Appellants identified any
error in these findings by the Examiner. Therefore, we do not find
Appellant’s argument to be persuasive and we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 28.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Appellant has shown that the Examiner has not provided evidence to
show that Park is valid prior art.
Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
Greiffenhagen in view of Hashimoto teaches simultaneously displaying
higher-resolution images in combination with an omni-directional image.
Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
Greiffenhagen in view of Hashimoto teaches displaying a number of higher-
resolution images in combination with an omni-directional image.
Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
Greiffenhagen in view of Hashimoto and Korein teach an omni-directional
camera and a higher-resolution camera mounted co-axially.

SUMMARY
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-4, 7, 9, 11, and 25-26 is
reversed. The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 12-16, 18-19, 21-23, and
27-29 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)(1)(iv).
15
Appeal 2009-003203
Application 10/215,688

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

ELD

STEVEN L. NICHOLS
RADER, FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC
10653 S. RIVER FRONT PARKWAY
SUITE 150
SOUTH JORDAN, UT 84095
16