Ex Parte Henninger et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2016

13751639 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
131751,639 01/28/2013
27268 7590 09/30/2016
Faegre Baker Daniels LLP
300 NORTH MERIDIAN STREET
SUITE 2700
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Paul E. Henninger III
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.
BSS0042-0l-US-E 3220
EXAMINER
TREHAN, AKSHAY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2663
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/30/2016 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):
inteas@faegrebd.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PAUL E. HENNINGER III and MICHAEL BOLOTINE
Appeal2015-006962
Application 13/751,639
Technology Center 2600
Before JASON V. MORGAN, MELISSA A. RAAP ALA, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1--4, 6-8, 14, 17, 18, and 20-29. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
INVENTION
Appellants' invention "relates to surveillance camera systems, and,
more particularly, to surveillance camera systems that are subject to being
occasionally serviced or upgraded." Spec. i-f 2.
Appeal2015-006962
Application 13/751,639
1. A modular surveillance camera kit, compnsmg:
a group of camera heads each having a respective set of
different performance characteristics;
a group of system controllers each having a respective set
of different performance characteristics; and
a group of communications modules each having a
respective set of different performance characteristics, each of
said communications modules being configured to be coupled to
a system interface;
wherein an assembled surveillance camera includes a
selected one of said group of camera heads, one of said group of
system controllers and one of said group of communications
modules such that said selected system controller electrically and
mechanically interconnects said selected camera head and said
selected communications module, each said system controller
being programmed to:
ascertain an identification of at least one of said
selected camera head and said selected communications
module in the assembled surveillance camera with the
system controller; and
operate said surveillance camera dependent upon
the identification.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over Paolantonio (US 2005/0094994 Al; May 5, 2005), Mars
(US 2008/0055409 Al; Mar. 6, 2008), Schultz (US 7,327,396 B2; Feb. 5,
2008), and Tanaka (US 7,123,126 B2; Oct. 17, 2006).
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over Paolantonio, Mars, Schultz, Tanaka, and Kutman (US 4,736,218;
April 5, 1988).
2
Appeal2015-006962
Application 13/751,639
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over Paolantonio, Mars, Schultz, Tanaka, and Shimizu (US 5, 778,008; July
7, 1998).
Claims 14, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over Paolantonio, Mars, Schultz, Tanaka, Kutman, and
Konica Minolta DiMAGE A2 Instruction Manual,© 2003 Konica Minolta
Camera, Inc. ("NPL 2003").
Claims 20, 26, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over Paolantonio, Mars, and Schultz.
Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over Paolantonio, Mars, Schultz, and Fitzgbbon (US 2005/0253544 Al;
Nov. 17, 2005).
Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over Paolantonio, Mars, Schultz, Fitzgbbon, and Robb (US 2005/0072987;
April 7, 2005).
Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over Paolantonio, Mars, Schultz, Fitzgbbon, and Hoyt (US 2003/0194971
Al; Oct. 16, 2003).
Claims 24 and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Paolantonio, Mars, Schultz, and Kutman.
Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over Paolantonio, Mars, Schultz, and Mann (US 2002/0057915 Al; May 16,
2002).
Claim 29 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over Paolantonio, Mars, Schultz, Kutman, and Mann.
3
Appeal2015-006962
Application 13/751,639
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants' contentions in the Briefs, the
Examiner's rejection, and the Examiner's response to Appellants'
contentions. We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments.
Obviousness Rejections of Claims 1, 20, 26, and 27
As reflected by Appellants' Reply Brief arguments, independent
claim 1 recites five principal features: (i) a group of camera heads, (ii) a
group of system controllers, (iii) a group of communication modules, each
component having respective performance characteristics; (iv) an assembled
surveillance camera including a selected camera head, a selected system
controller, and a selected communication module; and (v) each system
controller can ascertain an identification and accordingly operate the
selected camera head and/or the selected communication module. See Reply
Br. 3--4. Appellants argue, in various respects, the applied teachings of
Paolantonio, Mars, Schultz, and Tanaka do not teach or suggest the above
five claim features. App. Br. 5-10; Reply Br. 3--4. We are not persuaded of
error.
As an initial matter, we observe that many of Appellants' arguments
in the Appeal Brief are directed to several inherency determinations made by
the Examiner in the Final Office Action. See App. Br. 6-9. The Examiner
has replaced all inherency determinations with the findings presented by the
Answer's "response to arguments" section at pages 2-8. See Ans. 2 ("The
Examiner no longer uses the language 'inherently' in the arguments and
provides teachings pertaining to the prior art specification for every instant
the Appellant argued."). Therefore, Appellants' inherency arguments are
unpersuasive of error.
4
Appeal2015-006962
Application 13/751,639
The Examiner finds the combination of Paolantonio, iviars, and
Schultz teaches or suggests the limitations recited in claim 1. 1 See Ans. 3-8.
In particular, the Examiner finds Mars teaches or suggests a selectable group
of camera heads with different performance characteristics and a selectable
group of communication modules with different performance characteristics.
Ans. 3--4. The Examiner finds the combination of Mars, Paolantonio, and
Schultz teaches or suggests a selectable group of system controllers with
different performance characteristics. Ans. 4---6. And the Examiner finds
Schultz teaches a system controller that can ascertain an identification of the
camera head and communication modules and operate the surveillance
camera dependent upon the identification. Ans. 6-7. The Examiner also
finds that both Paolantonio and Mars teach surveillance cameras that
exchange identification information between a system controller and the
individual components. Ans. 7.
Without any discussion of the Examiner's specific findings,
Appellants argue "there is no disclosure or suggestion in Mars and
Paolantonio of a group of camera heads, a group of system controllers, or ~
group of communications modules that each have a respective set of
different performance characteristics." Reply Br. 3. However, Appellants
fail to address the specific findings made by the Examiner that Mars teaches
1 The Examiner's reliance on Tanaka is merely additional to the Examiner's
reliance on Schultz. See Final Act. 9 (relying on Tanaka "to further show a
system controller for identifying the system components and operating the
surveillance camera system dependent upon the identification"). For the
reasons discussed infra, Appellants do not persuade us the Examiner errs in
finding Schultz teaches or suggests the limitations for which the Examiner
also relies on Tanaka. Accordingly, we do not need, and decline, to address
Appellants' arguments regarding Tanaka.
5
Appeal2015-006962
Application 13/751,639
the selectable group of camera heads and the selectable group of
communication modules. See Reply Br. 3; see also App. Br. 8. Appellants
also do not address the Examiner's specific findings that the combined
teachings of the cited references teach the selectable group of system
controllers, but instead merely acknowledge that Schultz discloses a
processor that is capable of being programmed to perform various functions
and contend that Schultz does not disclose a group of system controllers that
have different performance characteristics. Because Appellants fail to
address the Examiner's detailed findings, we are unpersuaded the Examiner
errs in finding the combination of Paolantonio, Mars, and Schultz teaches or
suggests the claimed groups of camera heads, system controllers, and
communication modules. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2014) ("A
statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be
considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim."); see also In
re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[W]e hold that the Board
reasonably interpreted Rule 41.3 7 to require more substantive arguments in
an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked
assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.");
cf In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ("It is
not the function of this court to examine the claims in greater detail than
argued by an appellant, looking for [patentable] distinctions over the prior
art.").
Appellants further argue that Schultz fails to disclose an "assembled
surveillance camera [that] includes a selected one of said group of camera
heads" because "the chassis 111 in Schultz does not have 'performance
characteristics."' Reply Br. 4. This argument is unpersuasive because the
6
Appeal2015-006962
Application 13/751,639
Examiner does not state the chassis alone is analogous to the claimed camera
head, but rather finds both the camera and the chassis are analogous to the
camera head. See Ans. 5. Furthermore, the Examiner also relies on Mars to
teach a selectable group of camera heads with different performance
characteristics. See Ans. 3--4. Thus, Appellants arguments regarding
Schultz alone are unpersuasive of error. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426
(CCP A 1981) ("[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of
references.").
Appellants additionally argue:
[T]he interface protocol information discussed in Schultz does
not ascertain the identification of components of the camera 110.
Instead, the interface protocol information is received by the
smart camera 110, from the function modules 108, in order to
specify "how to operate or interface with the function module."
See Schultz, col. 12, 11. 42-45; see also Schultz, col. 5, 11. 8-
11.
Reply Br. 4.
The Examiner finds Schultz teaches the claimed ascertaining
identification information. See Ans. 6-7. The cited passages of Schultz
teach a new function module may be "hot plugged" into the smart camera
and may communicate its interface information to the smart camera. Schultz
17:32--47; see also Schultz 12:43---61. Appellants' argument is unpersuasive
because Appellants do not explain why the function module specifying its
interface information fails to teach or suggest the component as identifying
itself.
Appellants also argue the Examiner has unreasonably relied on
Schultz as teaching or suggesting replacing a camera head (or other
7
Appeal2015-006962
Application 13/751,639
component) with a different camera head (or other component) that has
different "performance characteristics."2 See Reply Br. 5. In support,
Appellants contend the Examiner proposes a swapping of digital and analog
cameras that are only mentioned by Schultz and thus not shown to be
modularly exchangeable (e.g., not shown to have the same hardware
connections). Id. Appellants further contend the Examiner proposes a
swapping of function modules 108, within Schultz's smart camera 100 that
does not constitute in an exchange of camera components. Id. Appellants
again neglect the Examiner's specific findings that Mars teaches a selectable
group of camera heads with different performance characteristics (Ans. 3--4)
and Schultz teaches customizable/modular functionality for enhancing the
expansion capabilities of a camera (Ans. 5). Therefore, we are not
persuaded of error.
For the reasons stated above, Appellants do not persuade us of error in
the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claim 1.
Appellants' arguments for independent claims 20 and 27 are
substantially similar to those made for claim 1. See App. Br. 17-19, 22-25;
Reply Br. 5-6. These arguments are unpersuasive for the same reasons
discussed supra. Claim 26 depends from claim 20 and is not separately
argued. Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.SC. § 103(a) rejection of claims
20, 26, and 27.
2 Appellants make this argument with respect to claims 20 and 27. Reply
Br. 5. However, because the Examiner's findings are regarding
"independent claims 1, 20, and 27" (Ans. 2) and claim 1 recites similar
recitations, we exercise our discretion to address the arguments in the
discussion of claim 1.
8
Appeal2015-006962
Application 13/751,639
Obviousness Rejection of Claim 2
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and adds that "each said system
controller is programmed to ascertain the identification after said
surveillance camera has been assembled[.]" Appellants argue Paolantonio
does not disclose the disputed limitation and the Examiner has improperly
relied on the inherency doctrine. App. Br. 10-11. The arguments fail to
address the Examiner's reasonable reliance on Schultz for this feature. See
Ans. 8. Therefore, we are unpersuaded of error and we sustain the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claim 2.
Obviousness Rejection of Claim 3
Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and adds:
a group of thermal modules, each of said thermal modules
being configured to be coupled to the system interface, wherein
said assembled surveillance camera includes a selected one of
said group of thermal modules, each said system controller being
programmed to:
ascertain an identification of said selected thermal module
that is assembled in a same said surveillance camera as said
system controller; and
operate said surveillance camera dependent upon the
thermal module identification.
Appellants argue:
While Paolantonio does disclose a heater element 55, ... the
cameras 70 in Tanaka have identification information[, and]
... Kutman discloses that a heater may comprise 'a number of
blanket heaters[,]' there is no disclosure or suggestion in
Paolantonio, Tanaka or Kutman that a heater element has a
particular identification, let alone that operation is dependent
upon the identification as claimed in claim 3.
App. Br. 11.
9
Appeal2015-006962
Application 13/751,639
We are not persuaded of error. The Examiner finds the teachings of
Schultz for ascertaining an identification for a module can be applied to the
other cited references' teachings of a thermal module to teach the claimed
ascertain and operate limitations. Ans. 9-10. Appellants' argument fails to
address the Examiner's findings regarding Schultz and is thus unpersuasive
of error. Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
claim 3.
Obviousness Rejection of Claim 4
Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and adds that "the identification of at
least one of said selected camera head and said selected communications
module corresponds to said respective set of performance characteristics."
Appellants argue Tanaka does not disclose or suggest that individual
components have identifications corresponding to said respective set of
performance characteristics. App. Br. 12. We are unpersuaded of error
because Appellants' arguments fail to address the Examiner's findings that
the combination of Schultz, Paolantonio, and Mars teaches the disputed
limitation. Ans. 10. Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claim 4.
Obviousness Rejection of Claim 6
Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and adds:
each said system controller is programmed to generate an output
signal including:
an identification of said system controller;
an identification of said selected camera head;
an identification of said selected communications module; and
diagnostic information associated with at least one of said system
controller, said selected camera head, and said selected
communications module.
10
Appeal2015-006962
Application 13/751,639
Appellants argue: "Just because [Paolantonio's] diagnostic connector
116 enables diagnostic connection to the hardware and software resident on
PCB 26 in Paolantonio does not mean that the identifications are associated
[with] particular components of the camera, such as a system controller, a
camera head, or a communications module." App. Br. 13.
The Examiner finds Paolantonio's diagnostic connector 116 interfaces
with microprocessor 102 to obtain diagnostic information of system
components. Ans. 11-12 (citing Paolantonio i1i1 42, 49, 52). The Examiner
points to Schultz's teachings, as discussed for claim 1, on the system
controllers, interface protocols, and control operations. Ans. at 12. The
Examiner also finds Mars real-time status information teaches the
"performance characteristics and identification information." Id. Appellants
do not address these specific findings of the Examiner and thus do not
persuade us of error. Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claim 6.
Obviousness Rejection of Claim 7
Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and adds:
a group of housings each including a respective version of
the system interface, wherein said assembled surveillance
camera includes a selected one of said group of housings, each
said system controller being programmed to:
ascertain an identification of said selected housing that is
assembled in a same said surveillance camera as said system
controller; and
operate said surveillance camera dependent upon the
housing identification.
Appellants argue only that the Examiner's inherency findings are
improper and "[ n ]either Paolantonio nor Tanaka discloses or suggests a
housing having an associated identification." App. Br. 13.
11
Appeal2015-006962
Application 13/751,639
The arguments fail to address the Examiner's detailed findings within
the Answer's response to arguments, which replace the Examiner's
inherency findings (Ans. 2) and do not rely on Paolantonio or Tanaka
individually to reject claim 7 (see id. at 12-14). Accordingly, we are not
persuaded of error and we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
claim 7.
Obviousness Rejection of Claim 8
Claim 8 depends from claim 1 and adds:
each said system controller is programmed to:
determine, based upon the identifications, whether said
selected camera head, said selected communications module and
said system controller in the assembled surveillance camera are
operationally compatible with one another; and
notify a user if said selected camera head, said selected
communications module and said system controller in the
assembled surveillance camera are not operationally compatible
with one another.
Appellants argue:
Just because [Paolantonio's] diagnostic connector 116 enables
diagnostic connection to the hardware and software resident on
PCB 26 in Paolantonio does not mean that that identifications are
associated particular components of the camera, such as a camera
head and/or communications module, let alone that compatibility
of system components is determined based on the identifications
(which don't exist in Paolantonio).
App. Br. 14.
Appellants further argue the Examiner improperly relies on the
inherency doctrine. Id. at 14--15.
These arguments are unpersuasive as it fails to address the Examiner's
detailed findings that the combination of Paolantonio and Schultz teaches or
12
Appeal2015-006962
Application 13/751,639
suggests the disputed limitations. See Ans. 14--16. Accordingly, we sustain
the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of Claim 8.
Obviousness Rejection of Claims 14, 17, and 18
Claim 14 depends from claim 3 and adds:
ascertain identifications of said camera head module, of
said communications module, and of said thermal module, each
of said identifications corresponding to a respective set of
performance characteristics;
collect at least one of diagnostic data and environmental
data associated with operation of at least one of said camera head
module, said communications module, said thermal module, and
said system controller module;
determine whether at least one of said camera head
module, said communications module, said thermal module, and
said system controller module should be replaced with a like
module, said determination being based upon the identifications
and upon said at least one of diagnostic data and environmental
data; and
notify a user if at least one of said camera head module;
said communications module, said thermal module, and said
system controller module should be replaced.
Appellants argue only that the Examiner's inherency findings are
improper and neither Paolantonio, Tanaka, nor the Konica-Minolta manual
teaches or suggests diagnosing and notification of components needing
replacement. App. Br. 15-17.
The argument is unpersuasive as it fails to address the Examiner's
detailed findings within the Answer's response to arguments, which replace
the Examiner's inherency findings (Ans. 2) and do not rely only on
Paolantonio, Tanaka, and the Konica-Minolta as contended by Appellants
(Ans. 16-18). The Examiner finds that Paolantonio, Mars, and Schultz
collectively teach or suggest component identifications and diagnostics (id.
13
Appeal2015-006962
Application 13/751,639
at 16-17). Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 14 and its
dependent claims 17, and 18, which are not argued separately.
Obviousness Rejection of Claim 21
Claim 21 depends from claim 20 and adds that "at least one of the
plurality of camera heads, the plurality of system controllers and the
plurality of communications modules includes an in-rush current limiting
device."
Appellants argue Fitzgbbon discloses a current limit portion 12a for a
garage door operator and does not disclose or suggest a camera head, a
controller or a communications module of a security camera includes a
current limiting portion. App. Br. 19. The Examiner finds the limitation is
taught by combining the modular surveillance camera kit taught by
Paolantonio/Mars/Schultz with Fitzgbbon's teaching of circuitry for an
electronic device which uses a current limiting device. Final Act. 22.
Appellants' argument that Fizgbbon alone does not teach the disputed
limitation is unpersuasive of error. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 426. We
are also not persuaded by Appellants' assertion the Examiner uses improper
hindsight (App. Br. 19) because Appellants do not present persuasive
argument the Examiner's articulated rationale for combining the references
1s improper. Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
claim 21.
Obviousness Rejection of Claim 22
Claim 22 depends from claim 21 and adds that "the in-rush current
limiting device comprises hot swap circuitry."
Appellants argue that "[ w ]hile Robb discloses a hot swap structure 31
including a current limit device or circuit 3 8, Robb does not disclose or
14
Appeal2015-006962
Application 13/751,639
suggest anything whatsoever with cameras or security systems." App.
Br. 19. The Examiner finds Paolantonio/Mars/Schultz teach the modular
surveillance camera kit, Schultz teaches the general concept of hot-plugged
modules, and Robb teaches a current limiting device which has hot swap
circuitry. Final Act. 23; see also Ans. 19--20. Appellants' argument that
Robb does not teach the disputed limitation is unpersuasive of error. See In
re Keller, 642 F.2d at 426. We are also not persuaded by Appellants'
assertion the Examiner uses improper hindsight (App. Br. 19) because
Appellants' do not present persuasive argument the Examiner's articulate
rationale for combining the references is improper. Accordingly, we sustain
the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 22.
Obviousness Rejection of Claim 23
Claim 23 depends from claim 21 and adds that "the in-rush current
limiting device comprises a tri-statable signal line."
Appellants argue that "Hoyt relates to dual mode class D amplifiers.
Hoyt does not disclose or suggest anything whatsoever with cameras or
security systems." App. Br. 20. Appellants' arguments regarding Hoyt are
unpersuasive of error because the Examiner relies on the combined
teachings of Paolantonio, Mars, Schultz, Fitzgbbon, and Hoyt to teach the
disputed limitation. See Final Act. 24; Ans. 20-21. We are also not
persuaded by Appellants' assertion the Examiner uses improper hindsight
(App. Br. 20) because Appellants do not present persuasive argument the
Examiner's articulated rationale for combining the references is improper.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 23.
15
Appeal2015-006962
Application 13/751,639
Obviousness Rejection of Claims 24 and 28
Appellants present contentions for the separate patentability of claims
24 and 28. However, Appellants' contentions amount to no more than a
recitation of the claim language and an assertion the cited references do not
disclose the recited limitations. See App. Br. 20-21, 25. A mere assertion
the cited prior art does not disclose the claimed language is not a substantive
argument for separate patentability. In re Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357 ("[W]e
hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.3 7 to require more
substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim
elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not
found in the prior art."). Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error and we
sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of these claims.
Obviousness Rejections of Claims 25 and 29
Claim 25 depends from claim 20 and adds that "the plurality of
camera heads includes a PTZ [pan-tilt-zoom] camera head, a fixed camera
head, and an imitation camera head, at least one of the plurality of
communications module and the plurality of system controllers including a
feed through device compatible with the fixed camera head."
Appellants argue:
There is no disclosure or suggestion of the claimed "fixed camera
head" in paragraph [0030] of Paolantonio. . . . Mann discloses
in paragraph [O 186] cited by the Examiner that "many
department stores use a mixture of fake nonfunctional cameras
and real ones, so that the customer never knows whether or not a
16
Appeal2015-006962
Application 13/751,639
given camera is operational". Using a mixture of real and fake
cameras does not disclose or suggest the [disputed limitation].
App. Br. 21. 3
We are not persuaded of error. The Examiner further finds, and
Appellants acknowledge, that Mann teaches an imitation camera head. See
Final Act. 26. The Examiner further finds Paolantonio teaches the feed
through device (Final Act. 26) and Schultz teaches a fixed camera head
(Ans. 22). Appellants do not address these findings. Therefore, we are not
persuaded of error and we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
claim 25. We further sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 29,
for which Appellants present substantially the same arguments made for
claim 25. See App. Br. 26.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1--4, 6-8, 14, 17, 18, and 20-29
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
3 We have removed, by our ellipses, Appellants' reference to a "Blackshear"
reference that does not appear to be of record. See App. Br. 21.
17