Ex Parte JOHNSTON et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 5, 2013

12634486 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 5, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/634,486 12/09/2009 GREGORY E. JOHNSTON P559C 7631
23586 7590 02/06/2013
ROBERT E MALM
16624 PEQUENO PLACE
PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, LUONG TRUNG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2663
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/06/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte GREGORY E. JOHNSTON and ARIE LEVINKRON
____________

Appeal 2012-002306
Application 12/634,486
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and
KEVIN F. TURNER, Administrative Patent Judges.

RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1, 2, and 18. Claims 4, 16, and 17 have been indicated by the
Examiner as containing allowable subject matter, but are objected to as
being dependent on a rejected claim (Ans. 8). The Examiner has withdrawn
the 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections of claims 5, 11, and 22 (Ans. 8-9).1 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 Appellants filed a terminal disclaimer to obviate the nonstatutory
obviousness-type double patenting rejections of claims 1, 3, 6-10, 13-15, and
19. The Examiner did not repeat this rejection in the Answer.
Appeal 2012-002306
Application 12/634,486

2
We affirm.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
reference is made to the Appeal Brief (filed Aug. 22, 2011), the Answer
(mailed Oct. 3, 2011), and the Reply Brief (filed Nov. 7, 2011). Only those
arguments actually made by Appellants have been considered in this
decision. Arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not to
make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived
(see 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)).

Appellants’ Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to a mobile pan and tilt camera and
display-control apparatus including a display-control box being attached to
an adjustable mount in the vehicle within the vehicle driver’s view and
reach. The display-control box includes an image display screen and control
buttons for controlling the camera. See generally Abstract.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows:
1. A mobile pan and tilt camera and display-control apparatus
comprising:
a fully rotatable camera attached to a mount assembly that is mounted
to a vehicle for capturing mobile images by the vehicle driver, said fully
rotatable camera being achieved by mounting said camera to a tilting
mechanism mounted on a panning mechanism;
a display-control box having an image display screen and controls for
panning and tilting said camera by the vehicle driver, said display-control
box being attached to an adjustable mount in said vehicle within the vehicle
driver’s view and reach,
Appeal 2012-002306
Application 12/634,486

3
an image capture box for receiving said captured mobile images.

The Examiner’s Rejections
The Examiner’s Answer cites the following prior art references:
Maruyama JP 8-116476 May 7, 1996
Chino JP 8-160874 June 21, 1996
Klapper US 5,729,016 Mar. 17, 1998
Tamura US 6,147,701 Nov. 14, 2000
(filed July 14, 1997)
Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Klapper in view of Maruyama and Chino.
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Klapper in view of Maruyama, Chino, and Tamura.

ANALYSIS
Claim 1
Appellants’ arguments with respect to the obviousness rejection,
based on the combination of Klapper, Maruyama, and Chino, of independent
claim 1 initially contend that, while the Examiner relies upon Maruyama for
a teaching of integrating camera controls and a camera display in a single
compact unit, Maruyama does not teach integrating pan and tilt controls with
a display (App. Br. 6). Appellants’ argument is not persuasive.
While we do not necessarily agree with Appellants’ contention that
Maruyama’s control box does not include camera pan and tilt controls, the
Examiner has relied upon Klapper for a teaching of a control box with pan
and tilt controls for controlling movement of a camera. One cannot show
nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are
Appeal 2012-002306
Application 12/634,486

4
based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d
1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
We further find unpersuasive Appellants’ contention that the
Examiner has not provided a proper basis for the proposed combination of
Maruyama and Chino with Klapper (App. Br. 16-20; Reply Br. 6-7).
Contrary to Appellants’ argument, we find that the Examiner has provided a
valid articulated line of reasoning with a rational underpinning to support the
conclusion of obviousness with respect to claim 1 (Ans. 6, 9-11). KSR Int’l
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Appellants’ remarks direct attention to the safety implications of a
mobile surveillance system in which a vehicle driver, such as a patrol
officer, must steer the vehicle while simultaneously watching and
controlling the camera display (App. Br. 17-18). We find, however, that an
ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized and appreciated the
obviousness of combining Maruyama’s integrated control and display
teaching (Fig. 1) and Chino’s adjustable vehicle display mount teaching
(Figs. 1-3) with Klapper to address such safety implications. Further,
Maruyama, which includes a vehicle mounted camera embodiment (Fig. 59),
provides for the easy manipulation of camera control buttons with the
fingers without changing hand holding positions (pp. 29, 33; Figs. 21, 22,
25, 27).
For all of the above reasons, we simply find no error in the
Examiner’s finding that the use of the integrated display and control box
teachings of Maruyama as well as the adjustable display mount disclosure of
Chino would be recognized by the ordinarily skilled artisan as an obvious
enhancement to the vehicle roof-top camera control system of Klapper.
Appeal 2012-002306
Application 12/634,486

5
In our view the Examiner’s proffered combination of Klapper,
Maruyama, and Chino reasonably teaches and/or suggests Appellants’
claimed invention in terms of familiar elements that would have been
combined by an artisan having common sense using known methods to
achieve a predictable result. “The combination of familiar elements
according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
than yield predictable results.” KSR, at 416.
In view of the above discussion, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of independent claim 1 is sustained.

Claim 2
We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent
claim 2 which includes a limitation directed to a “quick disconnect”
mechanism of the camera and mount assembly. As pointed out by the
Examiner, contrary to Appellants’ contention (App. Br. 20-22; Reply Br. 8-
9), there is no characteristic of a bolted attachment interlocking mechanism
such as in the mounting assembly (500, 1014) of Klapper that would prevent
it from being considered to have a “quick disconnect” arrangement (Ans. 7,
12). Further, the illustration in Figure 2 of Klapper indicates that the camera
1 has recesses in the side walls which are designed to snap into the camera
disconnect mechanism in the mounting assembly 500 of Klapper which
takes the form of mating trunnions 512 and 514.

Claim 18
The Examiner’s obvious rejection of dependent claim 18 is also
sustained. Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive of any error in the
Appeal 2012-002306
Application 12/634,486

6
Examiner’s application of Tamura to the Klapper/Maruyama/Chino
combination to address the camera enclosing sphere feature of the rejected
claim. We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 8, 12) that Tamura discloses a
transparent spherical unit 4 which encloses the camera unit, i.e., the lens 1,
the CCD image receiving element 2, and the image shaping unit 3.
Contrary to Appellants’ contention (App. Br. 23-24; Reply Br. 10), we
fail to see why the supporting spherical unit 4 of Tamura which is covered
with a transparent material would not be considered a transparent sphere
(col. 5, ll. 14-17).2 Further, although Appellants argue otherwise (App. Br.
23-24; Reply Br. 10), we find nothing in the language of claim 18 which
requires the sphere to enclose the camera supporting structure such as the
panning unit 8 of Tamura.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2,
and 18 for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

DECISION
The Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1, 2, and 18, all
of the appealed claims, 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).

2 Although Appellants’ arguments use the terminology “transparent” sphere,
claim 18 recites the terminology “optically clear sphere.”
Appeal 2012-002306
Application 12/634,486

7
AFFIRMED

babc