Ex Parte Jones

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 21, 2016

13028407 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 2016)

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.
13/028,407 02/16/2011 Theodore L. Jones 081276-2052 8681
34044 7590 12/23/2016
MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (Bosch)
100 EAST WISCONSIN AVENUE
MILWAUKEE, WI 53202
EXAMINER
ZHOU, ZHIHAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2482
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/23/2016 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):
mkeipdocket@michaelbest.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THEODORE L. JONES
Appeal 2015-008203
Application 13/028,407
Technology Center 2400
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM,
Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2015-008203
Application 13/028,407
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1, 3—8, and 10-26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
The invention relates to a pan-tilt-zoom surveillance camera with an
integral large-domain sensor (Spec. 16). Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A surveillance camera arrangement comprising:
a PTZ camera configured to:
perform panning movements about a pan axis; and
perform tilting movements within a plane of tilting
motion, such that a range of possible tilt positions is
captured by the plane of tilting motion, the plane of tilting
motion being offset from, and substantially parallel to and
non-coincident with, the pan axis, and
a large domain sensor substantially aligned with the pan
axis, the large domain sensor having a wider field of view than
the PTZ camera,
wherein the PTZ camera is mechanically coupled to the
large domain sensor.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
2
Appeal 2015-008203
Application 13/028,407
Ambrose US 2002/0146249 A1 Oct. 10, 2002
Kaylor US 2003/0025791 A1 Feb. 6, 2003
Elberbaum US 6,628,338 B1 Sept. 30, 2003
Aagaard US 2003/0210329 A1 Nov. 13, 2003
Kozlov US 2007/0182813 A1 Aug. 9, 2007
Abe US 2009/0237354 A1 Sept. 24, 2009
Mojaver WO 2008/079862 A1 July 3, 2008
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1, 3—5, 8, 10, 13, 23, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being anticipated by Mojaver and Kozlov.
Claims 6, 7, 11, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Mojaver, Kozlov, and Elberbaum.
Claim 14—17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mojaver, Kozlov, and Kaylor.
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mojaver, Kozlov, Kaylor, and Aagaard.
Claims 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mojaver, Kozlov, Kaylor, and Elberbaum.
Claims 21, 22, 24, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Mojaver, Kozlov, and Abe.
Claims 1, 3—5, 8, 10, 13, 23, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mojaver and Ambrose.
Claims 6, 7, 11, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Mojaver, Ambrose, and Elberbaum.
3
Appeal 2015-008203
Application 13/028,407
Claim 14—17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mojaver, Ambrose, and Kaylor.
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mojaver, Ambrose, Kaylor, and Aagaard.
Claims 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mojaver, Ambrose, Kaylor, and Elberbaum.
Claims 21, 22, 24, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Mojaver, Ambrose, and Abe.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejected pending claims 1, 3—8, and 10-26 over two
different sets of references: one set having Mojaver and Kozlov as the base
references, and the other set having Mojaver and Ambrose as the base
references. We address the rejections in turn below.
The Obviousness Rejections Based on Mojaver and Kozlov
The Examiner finds the combination of Mojaver and Kozlov discloses
all the limitations of independent claim 1, including that Kozlov teaches “the
plane of tilting motion being offset from, and substantially parallel to and
non-coincident with, the pan axis” (Final Act. 2—3). Appellant contends
there is no motivation to combine Kozlov with Mojaver (App. Br. 9—10).
We agree with Appellant.
We begin by finding that, when read in light of the Specification, the
broadest reasonable interpretation of a “plane of tilting motion” is a plane
orthogonal to a tilt axis and substantially centered within a camera body (see
Spec. 137; Fig. 1). For example, Figure 1 of the present invention shows a
plane of tilting 138 bisecting a camera 106 orthogonally to the tilt axis 108.
4
Appeal 2015-008203
Application 13/028,407
Mojaver describes
an optical imaging system that includes a wide-angle imaging
device and a camera having pan, tilt and zoom capabilities
(herein referred to as the “PTZ camera”), which are mounted in
a single enclosure such that the camera’s pan and tilt can be
adjusted to view any portion of the field of view accessible to the
wide-angle imaging device.
(Mojaver, p. 1,11. 14—18). As shown in Mojaver’s Figures IB and 1C, the
PTZ camera is mounted on a circular track 22 surrounding the wide-angle
lens, and can pan around an axis located at the wide-angle lens (Mojaver, p.
4,11. 27—32). However, the PTZ camera is mounted to the track 22 via a
bracket 24 such that the plane of tilting motion of the PTZ camera appears to
be parallel to and substantially coincident with the pan axis (see Mojaver,
Fig. 1C), contrary to claim 1, which requires “the plane of tilting motion
being offset from, and substantially parallel to and non-coincident with, the
pan axis.” (Emphasis added.)
Kozlov describes a stabilized camera system where a camera 32 is
mounted on a support system 30 that includes a pan frame 50 with a pan axis
51, and a tilt frame 58 with a tilt axis 59 (Kozlov, Fig. 2; || 21—27). We
find that the plane of tilting motion of Kozlov’s camera 32 can be
substantially parallel to and non-coincident with the pan axis 51, due to the
offset of the camera with respect to the pan axis shown in Kozlov’s Figure 6.
Appellant concedes “the camera 32 of Kozlov potentially appears to be
oriented offset from the pan axis 51 in Fig. 6” (App. Br. 9). However, we
agree with Appellant and find that the Examiner’s stated motivation to
combine the references—“to provide an improved stabilized camera head
and system that quickly that [sic] can be easily installed and balanced” and
to provide “a compact design, precise positioning, and improved
5
Appeal 2015-008203
Application 13/028,407
performance features and characteristics” (Final Act. 3)—fails to show it
would have been obviousness to modify Mojaver in view of Kozlov. See In
re NuVasive, No. 15-1670 slip op. at 9 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 7, 2016) (“Our
precedent dictates that the PTAB must make a finding of a motivation to
combine when it is disputed.”).
The Examiner has not shown a connection between the offset camera
feature of Kozlov and the asserted benefits of implementing that feature in
Mojaver. Specifically, the Examiner has not presented evidence showing
Kozlov’s offset camera feature results in stabilizing the camera or providing
a compact design with precise positioning. Rather, the offset of the camera
with respect to the pan axis appears to be merely incidental to Kozlov’s
design because the stabilization and compactness improvements of Kozlov’s
system are attributable to the particular interconnected system of the pan
frame 50, roll frame 54, and tilt frame 58 as a whole (see, e.g., Kozlov, 8).
Thus, the Examiner has failed to provide “articulated reasoning with some
rational underpinning to support the legal claim of obviousness.” KSR Int 7
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d
977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
Further, even if we consider the design elements that do provide
Kozlov’s improvements, the Examiner has not shown one would have been
led to implement these improvements in Mojaver. Kozlov’s stabilization
system is designed for use on “camera cars, camera trucks, camera dollys,
aircraft, watercraft, and virtually any other vehicle, base or support where
stabilization is desired” (Kozlov, 20). Mojaver’s optical imaging system,
on the other hand, is intended to be stationary, for example, “mounted on the
ceiling of a large room or an external wall surface of a building” (Mojaver,
6
Appeal 2015-008203
Application 13/028,407
p. 6,11. 28—29). Accordingly, there would be no recognized need to further
stabilize Mojaver’s system. There would also be no recognized need to
make Mojaver’s system more compact in the manner of Kozlov, because
Kozlov’s various frames supporting the single camera 32 are not designed to
prevent the occlusion of a second wide-angle camera mounted at the pan
axis of the camera, which is critical to Mojaver’s design (see Mojaver, p. 4,
11. 22—25; p. 5,11. 7—10). Rather, Kozlov’s camera, tilt frame, and roll frame
would obscure a wide-angle lens mounted at the pan axis (see Kozlov, Figs.
2, 3, and 5).
We are, therefore, constrained by the record to find the Examiner
erred in rejecting independent claim 1, independent claims 8 and 14 which
recite commensurate limitations, and dependent claims 3—7, 10-13, and 15—
26 for similar reasons.
The Obviousness Rejections Based on Mojaver and Ambrose
The Examiner also finds the combination of Mojaver and Ambrose
discloses all the limitations of independent claim 1, including that Ambrose
teaches “the plane of tilting motion being offset from, and substantially
parallel to and non-coincident with, the pan axis” (Final Act. 16). Appellant
contends Ambrose fails to teach this feature (App. Br. 17). We agree with
Appellant.
Ambrose describes:
two camera mounts 10 connected together to form a parallel, two
degree of freedom camera mount 66. In the exemplary
embodiment, each camera mount 10a, 10b includes a tilt linkage
68 that moves the ball 14 of each camera mount about a tilt axis
T. Each camera mount 10a, 10b also includes a verge linkage 70
that rotates the ball 14 of each camera mount about a verge axis
V.
7
Appeal 2015-008203
Application 13/028,407
(Ambrose, 141). The Examiner relies on Ambrose’s dual camera mount to
find “as seen in FIG. 9, one of the cameras 12 in ball 14 will tilt in a
direction, vertically up and down, that is parallel to and non-coincident with
the other camera’s verge/pan axis V” (Final Act. 16). In other words, the
Examiner finds that a first camera in Ambrose teaches the claimed “plane of
tilting,” while a second camera teaches the claimed “pan axis.” However,
the Examiner has not shown that Ambrose’s first camera pans around the
pan axis of the second camera. In contrast, claim 1 recites “a PTZ camera
configured to: perform panning movements . . . perform tilting movements .
. ., the plane of tilting motion being offset from, and substantially parallel to
and non-coincident with, the pan axis.” Importantly, the “plane of tilting
motion” and “pan axis” in claim 1 both relate to the same “PTZ camera.”
Thus, even if the plane of tilting of Ambrose’s first camera is parallel to and
non-coincident with the pan axis of the second camera, this fails to teach the
disputed claim limitation, which requires a PTZ camera’s plane of tilting to
be parallel to and non-coincident with its own pan axis.
We are, therefore, constrained by the record to find the Examiner
erred in rejecting independent claim 1, independent claims 8 and 14 which
recite commensurate limitations, and dependent claims 3—7, 10-13, and 15—
26 for similar reasons.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 3—8, and 10-26 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
8
Appeal 2015-008203
Application 13/028,407
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3—8, and
10-26 are reversed.
REVERSED
9