Ex Parte Mead et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 26, 2004

09075777 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 26, 2004)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 20
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte CARVER A. MEAD, J. ORION PRITCHARD,
RICHARD F. LYON and PETER SCHMIDT
____________
Appeal No. 2003-1992
Application No. 09/075,777
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before THOMAS, FLEMING, and BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent
Judges.
FLEMING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 1-44, all the claims pending in the instant application.
Invention
The invention relates to the field of electronic or digital
cameras and more specifically to tripod mounted view cameras used
in professional still photography. See page 1 of Appellants'
specification. Figure 2 shows a front, top, back, and side view
of the electronic view camera assembly. Figure 3 is a system
block diagram of the electronic view camera of Figure 2. See
Appeal No. 2003-1992
Application No. 09/075,777
2
page 7 of Appellants' specification. Referring to Figure 2, the
top view shows a camera head 201 that holds the lens assembly 211
and houses the image sensor module and associated electronics, a
laptop type computer 203, and a rigid mounting frame 202 that
holds the camera head 201 and computer 203 as a unified camera
assembly. See page 9 of Appellants' specification. A standard
camera tripod mount 210 is included in bottom plate 207 for
connecting a tripod to camera 200. See page 11 of Appellants'
specification. Figure 3 is a system block diagram of camera 200
and is shown to include camera head 201 with attached lens 211
and laptop computer 203. The camera elements controllable by
computer 203 include: lens assembly 211 for focus, aperture, and
zoom control; image sensor module 312 for initialization;
exposure, and resolution control; ADC 312 for quantization of
pixel data; image buffer 314 for image storage and retrieval.
See pages 11 and 12 of Appellants' specification.
Appellants' independent claim 1 is representative of the
claimed invention and is reproduced as follows:
1. An electronic view camera apparatus comprising:
a laptop type computer having a display screen, a manual
input device, a random access memory, a storage subsystem, and
input and output connectors;
Appeal No. 2003-1992
Application No. 09/075,777
3
a rigid frame structurally configured to mount on a tripod,
for securely holding a camera head and the laptop type computer
such that the input and output connectors, and the manual input
device are accessible; and
a camera head having a lens assembly, an image sensor
module, and an externally accessible control and a communication
port, the camera head securely mounted on the rigid frame so that
the lens assembly can be unobstructedly pointed at a subject;
wherein the laptop type computer is securely mounted on the rigid
frame so that the display screen can be conveniently viewed when
used as a viewfinder, and the laptop type computer is
electrically connected to the camera head for control of selected
camera head functions and for receiving image sensor data.
References
The references relied on by the Examiner are as follows:
Ohta et al. 4,642,700 Feb. 10, 1987
(Ohta)
Hashimoto et al. 4,731,665 Mar. 15, 1988
(Hashimoto)
Takach, Jr. et al. 4,830,328 May 16, 1989
(Takach)
Bradbury 5,212,628 May 18, 1993
Konno et al. 5,392,067 Feb. 21, 1995
Parulski et al. 5,402,170 Mar. 28, 1995
(Parulski)
Sergeant et al. 5,627,616 May 6, 1997
(Sergeant)
Bullock et al. 5,675,358 Oct. 7, 1997
(Bullock)
Iijima et al. 5,877,811 Mar. 2, 1999
(Iijima)
Rejections at Issue
Claims 1-5, 20-25 and 40-44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Bradbury in view of Takach.
Appeal No. 2003-1992
Application No. 09/075,777
4
Claims 6, 11, 16, 26, 31 and 36 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bradbury in view of
Takach and further in view Bullock.
Claims 7, 10, 27 and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Bradbury in view of Takach and further
in view of Parulski.
Claims 8, 9, 28 and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Bradbury in view of Takach and further
in view of Hashimoto.
Claims 12-14 and 32-34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Bradbury in view of Takach and further
in view Bullock and Iijima.
Claims 15 and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Bradbury in view Takach and further in
view of Bullock, Iijima and Parulski.
Claims 17 and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Bradbury in view of Takach and further in
view of Bullock and Sergeant.
Claims 18 and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Bradbury in view of Takach and further in
view of Bullock and Ohta.
Appeal No. 2003-1992
Application No. 09/075,777
1 Appellants filed an appeal brief on November 12, 2002.
Appellants filed a reply brief on April 9, 2003. The Examiner
mailed out an Office communication on June 3, 2003 stating that
the reply brief has been entered.
5
Claims 19 and 39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Bradbury in view of Takach and further in
view of Bullock and Konno.
Throughout our opinion, we will make reference to the
briefs1 and the answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on
appeal, the Examiner's rejections and the arguments of Appellants
and the Examiner, for the reasons stated infra, we reverse the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1-44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner
bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443,
1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468,
1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The Examiner can
satisfy this burden by showing that some objective teaching in
the prior art or knowledge generally available to one of ordinary
skill in the art suggests the claimed subject matter. In re
Appeal No. 2003-1992
Application No. 09/075,777
6
Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Only if this initial burden is met does the burden of coming
forward with evidence or argument shift to the Appellants.
Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at 1444. See also Piasecki,
745 F.2d at 1472, 223 USPQ at 788.
An obviousness analysis commences with a review and
consideration of all the pertinent evidence and arguments. "In
reviewing the [E]xaminer's decision on appeal, the Board must
necessarily weigh all of the evidence and argument." Oetiker,
977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at 1444. "[T]he Board must not only
assure that the requisite findings are made, based on evidence of
record, but must also explain the reasoning by which the findings
are deemed to support the agency's conclusion." In re Lee,
277 F.3d 1338, 1344, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2002). With
these principles in mind, we commence review of the pertinent
evidence and arguments of Appellants and Examiner.
For the rejection of claims 1-5, 20-25 and 40-44, Appellants
argue that Bradbury in combination with Takach fails to teach or
suggest all the claimed limitations as claimed in independent
claims 1, 21 and 41. Appellants argue that the combination of
Bradbury and Takach fail to teach or suggest a rigid frame
Appeal No. 2003-1992
Application No. 09/075,777
7
structurally configured to mount on a tripod, the rigid frame for
holding the camera head and the laptop type computer as a unified
camera structure, the camera head is securely mounted on the
front of the rigid frame so that lens is centrally located and
the lens' central axis is aligned from front to rear and the lens
can be unobstructedly pointed at a subject, the tripod mount is
on the bottom plate and located below the approximate center of
mass of the electronic view apparatus and below the central axis
of the lens for parallax reduction, and a rigid frame for
constructing an electronic view camera. See pages 11-16 of the
brief and pages 2-6 of the reply brief.
The Examiner states that Bradbury does not expressly
disclose a camera head securely mounted on the rigid frame so
that the lens assembly can be unobstructedly pointed at a
subject. See page 4 of the answer. The Examiner argues that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time the invention was made to physically mount Bradbury's
camera head onto the carrying case to accommodate for the absence
of a suitable surface space while operating the laptop computer
or other devices. The Examiner argues that this would allow the
user the flexibility of managing both the laptop computer as well
as the camera head. See page 4 of the answer.
Appeal No. 2003-1992
Application No. 09/075,777
8
In response, Appellants' argue that the Examiner merely
provides an opinion without evidence and that there would have
been a huge leap for one of ordinary skill in the art to mount
the digital camera head to the case. Appellants point out that
the Examiner merely provided an opinion about modifying the prior
art reference. Appellants point out that there is no specific
citation to the suggestion or desirability to modify the Bradbury
reference in the manner suggested by the Examiner. Appellants
point out that the Bradbury reference has no teaching of
attaching the peripheral digital camera to the carrying case.
See page 7 of the reply brief.
When determining obviousness, "[t]he factual inquiry whether
to combine references must be thorough and searching." In re
Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1343, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2002),
citing McGinley v. Franklin Sports, Inc., 262 F.3d 1339, 1351-52,
60 USPQ2d 1001, 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2001). "It must be based on
objective evidence of record." Id. "Broad conclusory statements
regarding the teaching of multiple references, standing alone,
are not 'evidence.'" In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999,
50 USPQ2d 1614, 1617. "Mere denials and conclusory statements,
however, are not sufficient to establish a genuine issue of
Appeal No. 2003-1992
Application No. 09/075,777
9
material fact." Dembiczak, 175 F.3d at 1000, 50 USPQ2d at 1617,
citing McElmurry v. Arkansas Power & Light Co., 995 F.2d 1576,
1578, 27 USPQ2d 1129, 1131 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The Federal Circuit reviews the Board's ultimate conclusion
of obviousness without deference, and the Board's underlying
factual determinations for substantial evidence. In re Huston,
308 F.3d 1267, 1276, 64 USPQ2d 1801, 1806 (Fed. Cir. 2002) citing
In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1316, 53 USPQ2d 1769, 1776 (Fed.
Cir. 2000). "The Board's findings must extend to all material
facts and must be documented on the record, lest the 'haze of so-
called expertise' acquire insulation from accountability." In re
Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1345, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1435 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Upon our review of Bradbury, we fail to find that Bradbury
provides a teaching or a suggestion of attaching the peripheral
digital camera to the Bradbury's carrying case. Bradbury does
teach by way of example, the peripheral devices to be carried
within the body 4 of case 1 include a digital camera 30. See
Bradbury, column 3, lines 34-36. Bradbury further teaches that a
pair of retaining straps 35 and 36 extend from the bottom of body
4 to surround and retain the digital camera 30. The straps 35
and 36 may contain hook and loop material by which said straps
Appeal No. 2003-1992
Application No. 09/075,777
10
can be fastened to one another to hold camera 30 in place within
the carrying case 1. In addition, padded side cushions 37 and 38
are secured to the bottom of body 4 between which the digital
camera 30 is received and protected against shock. See Bradbury,
column 3, lines 42-51. We find that Bradbury fails to teach,
other than to provide storage for camera 30, a means in which to
attach the peripheral camera to the carrying case so that the
lens assembly can be unobstructedly pointed at a subject as
recited in Appellants' independent claims 1, 21 and 41.
Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims
1-5, 20-25 and 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Bradbury in view of Takach.
For the remaining rejections, we note that the Examiner is
relying on the combination of Bradbury and Takach to teach a
rigid frame 4 securely holding a camera head, the camera head
securely mounted on the rigid frame so that the lens assembly can
be unobstructedly pointed at a subject as recited in the
independent claims from which the dependent claims depend
therefrom. Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner's
rejection for the same reasons as above.
Appeal No. 2003-1992
Application No. 09/075,777
11
In view of the foregoing, we have not sustained the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1-44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
REVERSED
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
MICHAEL R. FLEMING ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP )
Administrative Patent Judge )
MRF/lbg
Appeal No. 2003-1992
Application No. 09/075,777
12
KENNETH D'ALESSANDRO
SIERRA PATENT GROUP, LTD.
P O BOX 6149
STATELINE, NV 89449