Ex Parte Kim et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 23, 2013

11325344 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte HAK JE KIM and JIN WEON CHOI

____________

Appeal 2012-000685
Application 11/325,344
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 2012-000685
Application 11/325,344

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-20 (App. Br. 2). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
The Invention
Exemplary Claim 1 follows:
1. A security camera comprising:

a lens unit;

a drive which operates the lens unit by at least one of
panning, titling and zooming the lens unit;

an image processor which generates an original image
captured by the lens unit and comprising a privacy area which
is predetermined and a non-privacy area;

a privacy area processor which reduces a resolution of
the privacy area compared to the non-privacy area, and
generates a resultant image including the privacy area with the
reduced resolution; and

an output unit which transmits the resultant image to a
display,

wherein the privacy area processor comprises:

a privacy area calculator which locates the privacy
area if existence of the privacy area in the original image is
determined;

a bitmap generator which constructs a bitmap of
the original image including the privacy area;

Appeal 2012-000685
Application 11/325,344

3
a resampling unit which generates a resampling
image by dividing the original image into a plurality of blocks
according to a resolution of the bitmap; and

a synthesizer which selects a portion
corresponding to the privacy area from the resampling image
and a portion corresponding to the non-privacy area from the
original image, and synthesizes the selected portions to generate
the resultant image.

Claims 1-8 and 10-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) as being
anticipated by Sablak (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2005/0270371 A1) (Ans. 5-9).
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sablak in view of Kang (U.S. 7,493,038 B2) (Ans. 10).

ISSUE
Appellants’ responses to the Examiner’s positions present the
following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding that Sablak discloses a synthesizer
that “selects a portion corresponding to the privacy area from the
resampling image and a portion corresponding to the non-privacy area from
the original image, and synthesizes the selected portions to generate the
resultant image,” as recited in independent claim 1 (emphasis added) and as
similarly recited in independent claim 11?

ANALYSIS
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claims 1 and 11 because Sablak does not disclose the limitation emphasized
above (App. Br. 11-12). Appellants argue that “the switch 68b simply
outputs to the line 70 the blurred image output from the switch 68a as a
Appeal 2012-000685
Application 11/325,344

4
whole image (including the non-privacy region) when a privacy mask is
needed in a display screen while, when privacy masking is not needed, a
clean image from the line 54 is output” (App. Br. 12 (emphasis omitted)).
The Examiner found, however, that “Sablak discloses that when an image is
to be output with a portion of the image being blurred through the use of a
privacy mask, switch 68b communicates clean video signals (i.e., pixels) to
line 70 to generate a clear and accurate depiction of a corresponding portion
of the image, and communicates blurred video signals (i.e., pixels) to line 70
for pixels used to generate the selected portion of the image that corresponds
to the privacy mask” (Ans. 13 (emphasis omitted)).
We agree with the Examiner. Contrary to Appellants’ argument,
Sablak discloses that “switch 68b communicates clean video signals to line
70 from line 54 . . . of a corresponding portion of the image” (¶[0037]).
Moreover, Sablak discloses that “analog switch 68a communicates a blurred
image signal . . . to analog switch 68 b and switch 68b communicates this
blurred image to line 70 for the pixels used to generate the selected portion
of the image that corresponds to the privacy mask” (id.). In other words, the
clear portion of the image is provided to switch 68b from one input, the
blurred portion is provided to switch 68b from a second input, and the
complete image is synthesized through switch 68b from the two portions.
Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 1 and 11 as well as claims 2-8, 10, and 12-20 dependent therefrom
because Appellants did not set forth any separate patentability arguments for
the dependent claims (see App. Br. 10-13).
Appellants also argue that the Examiner erred in concluding that claim
9 is obvious over the combination of Sablak and Kang because the priority
Appeal 2012-000685
Application 11/325,344

5
date of the present application (March 8, 2005) is earlier than the publication
date of Kang (App. Br. 13). The Examiner concluded, however, that
“Appellant has not met the basic requirements to antedate a reference using
the foreign priority filing date . . . because, although Appellant has filed a
certified priority document in the application (Korean language), Appellant
has not filed an English language translation” (Ans. 17). We agree with the
Examiner. “The filing date of the priority document is not perfected unless
applicant has filed a certified priority document in the application (and an
English language translation, if the document is not in English).” MPEP
706.02(b). Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 9.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-8 and 10-20 as
being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and claim 9 as being
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