Ex Parte Johnston et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 5, 201312634486 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 5, 2013) Copy Citation 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 The Examiner has withdrawn the 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections of claims 5, 11, and 22 (Ans. 8-9).1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 Appellants filed a terminal disclaimer to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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation