Ex Parte Jomppanen

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 3, 2013

10988205 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 3, 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.
10/988,205 11/12/2004 Jarmo Jomppanen 915-005.130 8837
10945 7590 01/04/2013
NOKIA CORPORATION
c/o Ware, Fressola, Van Der Sluys & Adolphson LLP
Building Five, Bradford Green
755 Main Street, PO Box 224
Monroe, CT 06468
EXAMINER
PASIEWICZ, DANIEL M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2661
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/04/2013 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JARMO JOMPPANEN
____________

Appeal 2010-008128
Application 10/988,205
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before THU A. DANG, JAMES R. HUGHES, and GREGORY J.
GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges.

GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-008128
Application 10/988,205

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1, 3-9, 11-27, 30-32 and 35-40 (App. Br. 3). We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
The Invention
Exemplary claim 1 follows:
1. A capturing method comprising:

synchronizing in relation to a common reference clock at
least two recorders having a wireless data transfer connection
for forming a multi-recorder system,

triggering one or more recorders of said at least two
recorders for forming a triggering message comprising at least a
time stamp and

transmitting the triggering message via the wireless
connection to control the reorders,

receiving said triggering message in each of said at least
two recorders forming the multi-recorder system and

performing the capturing of a common target or separate
targets in each of said at least two recorders at the time
determined by the time stamp received in said triggering
message in each of said at least two recorders in relation to said
common reference clock.

Claims 1, 3-9, 11-27, 30-32 and 35-40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as being unpatentable over Gotohda (U.S. 2004/0183915 A1) in
view of Oka (Japanese Patent Publication 2002-247408 A) (Ans. 4-13).

Appeal 2010-008128
Application 10/988,205

3
FACTUAL FINDINGS
We adopt the Examiner’s factual findings as set forth in the Answer
(Ans. 3, et seq.).

ISSUE
Appellant’s responses to the Examiner’s positions present the
following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Gotohda and
Oka does not teach or suggest “transmitting the triggering message via the
wireless connection to control the recorders,” as recited in independent
claim 1, and as similarly recite in independent claims 9, 18, 22, and 26?

ANALYSIS
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting the
independent claims as obvious because the combination of Gotohda and Oka
does not teach or suggest the claim limitation emphasized above (App. Br.
7). In support of this contention, Appellant argues that Gotohda’s message
“does not itself trigger image capture since it is evidently the user of a slave
camera in receipt of such a notification who is the one who performs the
image capture at a time determined by the user and may in fact choose [to]
not perform the image capture” (id.).
The Examiner found, however, “that if photography were caused in all
the cameras 1A to 1D of Gotohda by ‘human choice,’ as Appellant alleges,
the images would not be captured simultaneously or at the same time” (Ans.
14). The Examiner then concluded that “this is precisely why Gotohda
Appeal 2010-008128
Application 10/988,205

4
discloses that the master camera causes the slave cameras to photograph”
(id.).
We agree with the Examiner’s conclusion and underlying findings of
fact. Gotohda discloses that “digital camera 1A instructs the digital cameras
1B to 1D to photograph” (¶ [155]). Gotohda also discloses that “[w]hen the
digital camera 1A photographs, the digital cameras 1B to 1D are caused to
photograph” (¶ [152]). Accordingly, contrary to Appellant’s argument,
Gotohda does disclose transmitting a triggering message, as recited in the
independent claims.
Appellant also contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would not
have been motivated to combine the teachings of Gotohda and Oka in the
manner suggested by the Examiner (App. Br. 8). In support of this
contention, Appellant argues that “[i]n the disclosure of Oka there is no hint
or suggestion of applying the IEEE 1394 (Firewire) technique to a wireless
environment” (id.). Appellant also argues that “Gotohda already discloses a
simple notification method for user mediated image capture and the method
of Gotohda would not be made simpler by incorporating the teachings of
Oka with respect [to] a time stamp in a wireless environment” (id.).
The Examiner concluded, however, that “the proposed motivation is
logical as Gotohda is silent as to what type of synchronization method is
used to automatically capture images at the same time and Oka states their
method is simpler than conventional methods as they provide a time stamp
synchronization method that can be used through the same communication
media as the image data” (Ans. 17).
We agree with the Examiner’s conclusion and underlying findings of
fact. Oka discloses “[t]he master camera generates a time stamp to
Appeal 2010-008128
Application 10/988,205

5
synchronize frame synchronizing signals of all the image pickup devices 110
(including the master camera)” (Abstract). That is, one of ordinary skill in
the art would have been motivated to use the time stamp as taught by Oka to
simplify and further define the synchronization method of Gotohda.
Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claims 1, 9, 18, 22, and 26.
Appellant also argues that the combination of Oka and Gotohda does
not teach certain limitations recited in certain dependent claims (App. Br. 9-
12). We find that the Examiner has directly rebutted such arguments by a
preponderance of the evidence (Ans. 17-21). As such, we endorse the
Examiner’s findings and ultimate conclusion of obviousness as set forth in
the Answer, which we incorporate herein by reference. It therefore follows
that Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner’s rejection of the
dependent claims.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3-9, 11-27, 30-
32 and 35-40 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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).

AFFIRMED

tkl