Ex Parte Mills

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 20, 2013

10802451 (P.T.A.B. May. 20, 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.
10/802,451 03/17/2004 Lawrence R. Mills C4-1207 3999
10850 7590 05/21/2013
Gerald M. Bluhm
Tyco Fire Protection
50 Technology Drive
Westminster, MA 01441-0001
EXAMINER
FINDLEY, CHRISTOPHER G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2482
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/21/2013 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 LAWRENCE R. MILLS
____________________

Appeal 2012-010836
Application 10/802,451
Technology Center 2400
____________________

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

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-010836
Application 10/802,451

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-5, 9, 11, 12, 14-21, and 23-26 (App. Br. 1). Claims 6-8, 10, 13 and
22 have been cancelled (id.). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

A. INVENTION
Appellant’s invention is directed to a system having a video user
interface display that includes transformed panoramic views of a monitored
area derived from wide-angle lens image data and virtual views of portions
of the monitored area based upon transformed wide-angle lens image data
(Abstract).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A system for creating signals indicative of a graphical
user interface from wide-angle image data corresponding to a
monitored area, said system comprising:

a buffer configured to receive wide-angle image data
corresponding to the monitored area; and

a processor operably coupled to said buffer and
configured to:

generate, from the buffered wide angle image data,
panoramic view data of a panoramic view of the
monitored area;

generate, from the buffered wide-angle image data
virtual view data representing a virtual view of a portion
of the panoramic view; and
Appeal 2012-010836
Application 10/802,451

3
encode the panoramic view data and the virtual
view data for display[.]

C. REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Kuban US 5,359,363 Oct. 25, 1994
Poelstra US 5,563,650 Oct. 08, 1996
Koyanagi US 2004/0257436 Al Dec. 23, 2004
(filed Jan. 27, 2004)
Monroe US 2007/0182819 Al Aug. 09, 2007
(Continuation of US 09/593,361, filed Jun. 14, 2000)

Claims 1-4, 11, 12, 14, 16-18, 20, 21, 23, and 26 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Koyanagi in view of Kuban.
Claims 9 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Koyanagi in view of Kuban and Monroe.
Claims 5, 15, 24, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Koyanagi in view of Kuban and Poelstra.

II. ISSUES
The dispositive issues before us are whether the Examiner has erred in
determining that the combination of Koyanagi and Kuban teaches or would
have suggested:
1. “generat[ing], from the buffered wide angle image data, panoramic
view data of a panoramic view of the monitored area” (claim 1, emphasis
added); and
Appeal 2012-010836
Application 10/802,451

4
2. “generat[ing], from the buffered wide-angle image data[,] virtual
view data representing a virtual view of a portion of the panoramic view”
(claim 1, emphasis added).

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Koyanagi
1. Koyanagi discloses a photographing apparatus, having a pan
tilter camera 3 which includes a telephotograph side and a wide-angle side
setting (Abstract; Fig. 1; ¶ [0042]).
2. When a panorama generation button is pressed, computer 1
generates a panorama picture; wherein, the pictures taken by the pan tilter
camera 3 are combined into one panorama picture by mapping them onto a
virtual spherical surface (Figs. 1, 3, and 4A-F; ¶¶ [0051]-[0054]). The
mapped pictures are combined in such a manner that an overlapped portion
and an unnecessary portion are removed (¶ [0054]).
Kuban
3. Kuban discloses an omnidirectional viewing system that
produces the equivalent of pan, tilt, zoom, and rotation within a selected
field-of-view with no moving parts; wherein, the system includes a means
for digitizing an incoming or prerecorded video image signal, transforming a
portion of the video image based upon operator or preselected commands
and producing one or more output images that are in correct perspective for
human viewing (col. 2, ll. 51-62). The system includes a camera with a
fisheye lens having a wide angle field-of-view (col. 2, ll. 62-64).
Appeal 2012-010836
Application 10/802,451

5

IV. ANALYSIS
Claims 1-4, 11-12, 14, 16-18, 20, 21, 23, and 26
Appellant contends that the Examiner has “misinterpret[ed]
Koyanagi’s generated panoramic picture by stating that Koyanagi’s
panoramic picture discloses both [Appellant]’s claimed wide angle image
data and [Appellant]’s claimed panoramic view data that is generated based
on wide angle data” (App. Br. 6). Appellant argues that “Kuban fails to cure
the deficiencies of Koyanagi” because “Kuban’s system does not generate
both panoramic view data and virtual view data from buffered wide angle
image data” (App. Br. 8). Appellant argues that “[m]odifying Koyanagi
with Kuban would change the ‘principle of operation of the prior art being
modified’ such that there is and can be [a] motivation to combine” because
“Koyanagi’s panoramic picture generation explicitly relies on using a
moving ‘pan tilter camera 3’ to photograph pictures” (App. Br. 4).
However, the Examiner finds that “both references cited allow for
alternate methods of creating panoramic pictures” (Ans. 13). In particular,
the Examiner finds that Koyanagi teaches “a procedure … where the original
component images are transformed into a seamless, undistorted panoramic
image” (Ans. 15). Thus, “the original component images may be considered
wide angle image data, as claimed, while the resultant panoramic image may
be considered panoramic view data” (id.).
Koyanagi discloses a photographing apparatus, having a pan tilter
camera having a wide-angle side setting (FF 1). When the panorama
generation button is pressed, the computer generates a panorama picture
using pictures taken by the pan tilter camera; wherein, the images are
Appeal 2012-010836
Application 10/802,451

6
combined into one panorama picture by mapping them onto a virtual
spherical surface (FF 2). We find that the images taken using the pan tilter
camera with the wide-angle side setting turned on comprise buffered wide
angle image data. We find further that the data generated for a panoramic
picture is generated using the images taken using the pan tilter camera
having the wide-angle side setting turned on. That is, we find that
Koyanagi’s method of generating a panorama picture comprises
“generat[ing], from the buffered wide angle image data, panoramic view
data of a panoramic view of the monitored area” (claim 1).
In addition, Kuban discloses an omnidirectional viewing system
having no moving parts that produces the equivalent of pan, tilt, zoom, and
rotation (virtual image) within a selected field-of-view from a video image
signal generated by a camera with a fisheye lens having a wide angle field-
of-view (FF 3). We find that the video image signal represents buffered
wide angle image data. We find further that the production of an image
equivalent to a pan, tilt, zoom, or rotation of an image comprises the step of
generating a virtual image from image data. That is, we find that Kuban’s
method of generating a virtual pan, tilt, zoom, and rotational image
comprises step of “generat[ing], from the buffered wide-angle image data[,]
virtual view data representing a virtual view of a portion of the panoramic
view” (claim 1).
Accordingly, we find that the combination of Koyanagi and Kuban at
least suggests all the claimed limitations of claim 1.
Though Appellant also contends that “[m]odifying Koyanagi with
Kuban would change the ‘principle of operation of the prior art being
modified’ such that there is and can be no motivation to combine” (App. Br.
Appeal 2012-010836
Application 10/802,451

7
4 (quoting MPEP § 2143.01)), Appellant has not provided persuasive
support for this assertion.
Since Koyanagi discloses a photographing apparatus, including a pan
tilter camera having a wide-angle side setting, we conclude that the
combination of one known element (Koyanagi’s photographing apparatus)
with another (Kuban’s method of generating a virtual pan, tilt, zoom, and
rotation image) would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention. Thus, we find that generating
panoramic view data from buffered wide angle image data as taught by
Koyanagi in addition to Kuban’s generation of virtual view data from
buffered wide angle image data is no more than a simple arrangement of old
elements, with each performing the same function it had been known to
perform, yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement.
See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
The skilled artisan would “be able to fit the teachings of multiple
patents together like pieces of a puzzle” since the skilled artisan is “a person
of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 420-21. Appellant has
presented no evidence that combining Koyanagi’s photographing apparatus
and method with the virtual image generating method of Kuban’s
omnidirectional viewing system was “uniquely challenging or difficult for
one of ordinary skill in the art” or “represented an unobvious step over the
prior art.” Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157,
1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418-19).
Accordingly, we find that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Koyanagi in view of
Kuban. Further, independent claims 16 and 21 having similar claim
Appeal 2012-010836
Application 10/802,451

8
language and claims 2-4, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18, 20, 23, and 26 (depending from
claims 1 and 16), which have not been argued separately, fall with claim 1.
Claims 5, 9, 15, 19, 24, and 25
Appellant argues that claim 5, 9, 15, 19, 24, and 25 are patentable
over the cited prior art for the same reasons asserted with respect to claim 1
(App. Br. 9 and 10). Appellant contends that “Monroe [and Poelstra] fails to
teach or suggest the elements of [c]laims 1 and 16” (App. Br. 9 and 10).
As noted supra, however, we find that the combination of Koyanagi
and Kuban at least suggests all the features of claim 1. We, therefore, affirm
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Koyanagi in view of Kuban and Monroe and of claims 5, 15, 24, and 25
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Koyanagi in view of Kuban and Poelstra for the
same reasons expressed with respect to claim 1.

V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-5, 9, 11, 12, 14-21, and 23-26
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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).

AFFIRMED

peb