Ex Parte Pelletier

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 15, 2008

09759486 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 15, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte DANIEL PELLETIER
____________________

Appeal 2007-2351
Application 09/759,486
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Decided: January 15, 2008
____________________

Before JAMES D. THOMAS, HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, and
ALLEN R. MACDONALD, Administrative Patent Judges.

MACDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals a Final Rejection of claims 1, 3-7, and 9-17 under
35 U.S.C. § 134. Claims 18 and 19 stand objected-to and are not subject to
appeal. (Reply Br. 2.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appeal 2007-2351
Application 09/759,486

According to Appellant, Appellant invented a method and apparatus
for automatically controlling movements of a camera by (1) selecting a
sequence of camera parametrics from a group of camera movements such as
zooming and panning and (2) determining criteria for executing the selected
sequence of camera parametrics to control movement of the camera. (Spec.
3:5-17.) In the words of Appellant:
With this vast amount of experimentation in camera
technique development, empirically derived standards have
emerged with regard to specific aspects of capturing a scene on
film, magnetic tape, or real-time transmittal, for example, in
television transmission. These empirically derived standards are
well known to the experienced practitioner, but are not
generally known to the average or occasional user. Hence, an
average or occasional camera user desiring to pan a scene may
proceed too quickly or too slowly. The resultant captured
image in either case is unpleasant to view as the images are
shown for either too short a period of time or too long a period
of time. Thus, to record high quality pleasantly viewable
images, a user must devote a considerable amount of time and
effort to obtain the skills needed to execute these empirically
derived standards. Alternatively, occasional users must seek
and employ persons who already have achieved the necessary
skills needed to operate camera equipment in accordance with
the derived standards. In the former case, the time and effort
spent to acquire necessary skills is burdensome and wasteful as
the skills must be continuously practiced and updated. In the
latter case, skilled personnel are continually needed to perform
tasks that are fairly routine and well known. Hence, there is a
need to incorporate cinematographic techniques using
empirically derived standards into camera equipment that will
enable users to produce high quality pleasantly viewable
images without undue burden and experimentation.

(Spec. 2:3-3:2.)
Appeal 2007-2351
Application 09/759,486

Claims 1, 3, and 5 are exemplary and are reproduced below:
1. A method for automatically controlling the movements of at
least one camera or camera lens to change the prospective of a scene
viewed by said at least one camera or camera lens, said method
comprising the steps of:

selecting at least one sequence of camera parametrics from a
plurality of sequences of camera parametrics, wherein said at least one
sequence of camera parametrics is selected from the group of camera
movements including scanning, zooming, tilting, orientating, panning,
fading, zoom-and-pull-back, fade-in, fade-out, and wherein said
parametrics provide instruction to control movement of said at least
one camera or camera lens;

determining criteria for executing said selected sequence of
camera parametrics, wherein said criteria are responsive to at least one
high level parameter of at least one object contained in said scene; and

adjusting movement of said at least one camera or camera lens
in response to said determined criteria.

3. The method as recited in claim 1 wherein said at least one high
level parameter includes the number of objects within said scene.

5. The method as recited in claim 1 wherein said at least one high
level parameter includes speech recognition of at least one object
within said scene.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Chim US 6,275,258 B1 Aug. 14, 2001
(filed Dec. 17, 1996)
Steinberg et al. US 6,750,902 B1 Jun. 15, 2004
(filed Dec. 20, 1999)
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-12, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as being anticipated by Chim.
3
Appeal 2007-2351
Application 09/759,486

Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chim and Steinberg.
We affirm.

FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Chim
1. Chim discloses a “sound or voice activation feature” that “enables a
video camera to track each speaking participant of the conference”
in the way people turn their eyes toward different persons during a
conversation with more than one person. (Col. 3, ll. 40-45.) Chim
discloses tracking a speaker with a camera to ensure that the speaker
is constantly within the field of view of the camera and “precisely
determine the position of each speaker when they are talking.”
(Emphasis added) (Col. 4, ll. 65-67 and Col. 8, ll. 26-46.)
2. Chim discloses monitoring audio signals and signal levels at
multiple microphones to determine the amount and rate of camera
movement to maintain a speaker within view of the camera involves.
(Col. 4, ll. 40-42.) Chim discloses that the camera movements can
include for panning or zooming the camera, or both. (Id.)
3. Chim discloses that the interface card 18 senses and tracks a
particular voice among other voices. (Col. 8, ll. 14-19.)

4
Appeal 2007-2351
Application 09/759,486

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Appellant has the burden on appeal to the Board to demonstrate error
in the Examiner’s position. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86 (Fed. Cir.
2006) (“On appeal to the Board, an applicant can overcome a rejection
[under § 103] by showing insufficient evidence of prima facie obviousness
or by rebutting the prima facie case with evidence of secondary indicia of
nonobviousness.”) (quoting In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir.
1998)).
During examination of a patent application, a claim is given its
broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification. In re
Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05 (CCPA 1969). “[T]he words of a claim ‘are
generally given their ordinary and customary meaning.’” Phillips v. AWH
Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (internal citations
omitted). “[T]he ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the
meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in
question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the
patent application.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d at 1313 (Fed. Cir.
2005) (en banc).
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference.” Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d
628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).

5
Appeal 2007-2351
Application 09/759,486

ANALYSIS
Claims 1 and 7
The Examiner found that Chim anticipates claims 1 and 7. (Ans. 3-5
and 7-9.) Appellant alleges that Chim does not disclose a selecting step
comprising (i) “selecting at least one sequence of camera parametrics from a
plurality of sequences of camera parametrics” and (ii) “wherein said at least
one sequence of camera parametrics is selected from the group of camera
movements including scanning, zooming, tilting, orientating, panning,
fading, zoom-and-pull-back, fade-in, fade-out” and Chim also does not
disclose a determining step comprising “determining criteria for executing
said selected sequence of camera parametrics.” (App. Br. 8-10 and Reply
Br. 2-3.)
Therefore the issues are whether the Appellant has shown that the
Examiner erred in finding that Chim discloses the selecting and determining
steps.

Selecting Step
Appellant alleges that Chim does not disclose the selecting step
because (1) the selecting step precludes camera movements and instructions
for camera movements that are “predetermined” or “automatically called
into play” (App. Br. 8 and Reply Br. 2) and (2) the claimed “sequence of
camera parametrics” is a set of rules for determining camera movement, and
Chim does not disclose selecting the set of rules because Chim discloses
camera movements are governed by a single predetermined instruction, i.e.,
panning and zooming the camera until the relative strengths of audio signals
from a set of microphones are stabilized (App. Br. 8-9).
6
Appeal 2007-2351
Application 09/759,486

First, we address allegation (1). The claimed selecting step does not
preclude camera movements and instructions for camera movements that are
predetermined or automatically called into play. Rather, the selecting step
merely requires selecting a single sequence of camera parametrics from a
plurality of sequences of camera parametrics, irrespective of when or how
selection takes place.
Next, we address allegation (2). First, we construe “sequence of
camera parametrics.” Appellant’s Specification states: “camera sequence
parametrics, which when supplied with information items from a designated
scene, determine the criteria for camera movement necessary to achieve the
desired operation.” (Emphasis added) (Spec. 6:2-6.) The customary and
ordinary meaning of “parametric” is a “set of measurable factors . . . that
define a system and determine its behavior and are varied in an experiment.”
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed. 2000),
found at www.bartelby.com. Accordingly, we broadly but reasonably
construe “sequence of camera parametrics” to include determinations that
are used to control camera movements.
Next, we determine whether Chim discloses the selecting step. Chim
discloses a “particular voice tracking” feature that involves determinations
of (a) identifying a particular speaker’s voice tone and (b) determining
changes in signal levels of the voice tone at multiple microphones to control
movement of the camera by panning and/or zooming. (FF 1-3.) Chim
discloses selecting the particular voice tracking in the midst of a plurality of
speakers’ voice tones and related signal levels of the voice tones at multiple
microphones. (FF 2 and 3.) Thus, Chim discloses requirement (i) of the
selecting step by disclosing selecting the “particular voice tracking” from a
7
Appeal 2007-2351
Application 09/759,486

plurality of voice tones and related signal levels of the voice tones at
multiple microphones. In addition, Chim discloses requirement (ii) of the
selecting step because the particular voice tracking feature is used to control
camera movements such as pan and/or zoom.
Accordingly, Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in
finding that Chim discloses the selecting step.

Determining Step
The Examiner finds that Chim discloses the determining step. (Ans.
3-5 and 8-9.) Appellant alleges that Chim does not disclose the determining
step because Chim's criteria for camera movement are not determined, but
rather predetermined, and are always the same in that the criteria are the
stabilization of the relative strengths of audio signals from a set of
microphones (App. Br. 9-10 and Reply Br. 2).
Contrary to Appellant’s allegation (App. Br. 9-10 and Reply Br. 2),
the determining step does not preclude that the criteria for executing a
sequence of camera parametrics are predetermined but merely requires that
the criteria are determined, irrespective of when or how determination takes
place.
We begin our analysis by construing “criteria” of the claimed
determining step. Appellant’s Specification states that an example of criteria
are “total zoom-in time, camera centering, rate of camera zoom level
change” and are “for controlling the camera movement or camera lens zoom
level to achieve the user selected ‘close-up.’” (Spec. 9:15-17.) We broadly
but reasonably construe “criteria” to involve an amount and rate of camera
movement to achieve the desired camera movement. Accordingly, the
8
Appeal 2007-2351
Application 09/759,486

determining step requires determining an amount and rate of camera
movement to achieve the desired camera movement.
Chim discloses controlling camera movements based on
determinations of changes in signal levels of a particular voice at multiple
microphones. (FF 2.) Chim discloses that the camera movement depends
on the amount and rate of movement of the speaker. (FF 1-2.) Thus, Chim
discloses that when a speaker is moving quickly across a scene, the changes
in signal levels across multiple microphones are rapid and the camera moves
rapidly. But, when a speaker moves slowly across a scene, the changes in
signal levels across multiple microphones are slow and the camera moves
slowly. Accordingly, Chim discloses determining the amount and the rate of
change of camera movement and thereby discloses the determining step.
Accordingly, Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in
finding that Chim discloses the determining step.
We conclude that the Appellant has not shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 1 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
Claims 3 and 9
The Examiner finds that Chim discloses determining a number of
objects in a scene of claims 3 and 9. (Ans. 4, 5, and 9-10.) Appellant
alleges that Chim does not disclose determining a number of objects in a
scene. (App. Br. 10-11 and Reply Br. 3-4.) We disagree with Appellant.
Contrary to the interpretations made by the Examiner and Appellant.
claims 3 and 9 do not require determining a number of objects. Rather,
claims 3 and 9 require that a high level parameter includes a number of
objects in a scene and their base claims require that the high level parameter
is used to adjust movement of a camera. Therefore, we broadly but
9
Appeal 2007-2351
Application 09/759,486

reasonably construe claims 3 and 9 to require consideration of a number of
objects in a scene to adjust movement of a camera.
In addition, contrary to Appellant’s allegation, the claims are not
limited to object recognition by image (Reply Br. 4) but encompass object
recognition by sound as well. For example, Appellant’s Specification states
that speech recognition is a potential high level parameter that is considered
in adjusting movement of a camera. (Spec. 5:7-8.) We agree with the
Examiner that “objects” is a broad term and can encompass speakers (Ans.
9). Accordingly, the claimed “objects” is met by speakers.
Chim discloses tracking a speaker based on the tone of voice of the
speaker. (FF 1-3.) Chim considers a number of objects in the scene to
adjust movement of a camera because Chim recognizes that the presence of
a plurality of different speakers and recognizes each of the plurality of
speakers in the scene but only moves the camera to track a single speaker.
(FF 1-3.) Accordingly, Chim discloses consideration of a number of objects
in a scene to adjust movement of a camera and thus discloses the
requirements of claims 3 and 9.
We conclude that the Appellant has not shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 3 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
Claims 5 and 11
The Examiner finds that Chim discloses speech recognition of claims
5 and 11. (Ans. 4, 6, and 10.) Appellant alleges that Chim does not disclose
speech recognition because Chim discloses neither (1) conversion of speech
to digital signals (App. Br. 11) nor (2) recognition of the content of speech
(Reply Br. 5). We disagree with Appellant.
10
Appeal 2007-2351
Application 09/759,486

We begin our analysis by construing “speech recognition.”
Appellant’s Specification states “[s]peech recognition 120 can be used to
determine a specific object speaking within a scene.” (Spec. 5:8-9.)
Accordingly, we broadly but reasonably construe speech recognition to
involve merely identifying an object that is speaking but not to require
recognition of the words of speech. Thus, claims 5 and 11 require
identifying a speaker to adjust movement of a camera.
Chim discloses identifying a speaker by the tone of voice and moving
a camera to track the identified speaker. (FF 1-3.) Thus, Chim discloses the
requirements of claims 5 and 11.
We conclude that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 5 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
Other Claims
As to dependent claims 4, 6, 10, 12, 16, and 17, Appellant merely
references or repeats the arguments made with respect to claim 1 or 7. (App.
Br. 12 and Reply Br. 5.)
As to dependent claims 13-15, Appellant merely references or repeats
the arguments made with respect to claim 7. (App. Br. 13 and Reply Br. 5.)
Therefore, as to the rejection of these claims, the Appellant has not
shown Examiner error for the same reasons discussed supra with respect to
claims 1 and 7.

OTHER ISSUES
Should there be further prosecution, we suggest that the Examiner
consider the following U.S. Patent references: 4,847,543 to Fellinger,
5,384,594 to Sieber et al., and 6,191,842 to Navarro.
11
Appeal 2007-2351
Application 09/759,486

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that:
(1) Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
claims 1, 3-7, 9-12, and 16-17 are anticipated by Chim under 35 U.S.C. §
102(e);
(2) Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in concluding
that claims 13-15 are unpatentable over the combined teachings and
suggestions of Chim and Steinberg under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a); and
(3) Claims 1, 3-7, and 9-17 are unpatentable.

DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 3-7, and 9-17 are 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

clj

PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
P.O. BOX 3001
BRIARCLIFF MANOR, NY 10510

12