Ex Parte Rondinelli et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 30, 2013

11194177 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 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.
11/194,177 08/01/2005 Michael Rondinelli EYESEE 71488 2994
29694 7590 09/30/2013
PIETRAGALLO GORDON ALFANO BOSICK & RASPANTI, LLP
ONE OXFORD CENTRE, 38TH FLOOR
301 GRANT STREET
PITTSBURGH, PA 15219-6404
EXAMINER
CZEKAJ, DAVID J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2487
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/30/2013 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 MICHAEL RONDINELLI, ANTHONY STENTZ,
SANJIV SINGH, and HERMAN HERMAN
____________

Appeal 2012-009584
Application 11/194,177
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before THU A. DANG, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
JEFFREY S. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-009584
Application 11/194,177

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
final decision rejecting claims 1-21, which are all the claims remaining in
the application. (Br. 2.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellants’ Invention
The invention at issue on appeal concerns apparatuses, systems, and
methods for image capture and playback including capturing sound with a
sound capturing device where the sound is associated with the particular
direction of the viewed images, and capturing motion with a motion
capturing device where the motion is associated with the particular direction
of the viewed images. (Spec. ¶¶ [0002], [0005]-[0009]; Abstract.)1
Representative Claim
Independent claim 1, reproduced below with the key disputed
limitations emphasized, further illustrates the invention:
1. An apparatus comprising:
a panoramic visual image capturing device capable of
recording panoramic visual images;
a sound capturing device capable of recording sound
associated with viewing directions for the visual images; and
a motion capturing device capable of recording motion
associated with viewing directions for the visual images.

1 We refer to Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.”) and Appeal Brief (“Br.”)
filed January 3, 2012. We also refer to the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”)
mailed March 15, 2012.
Appeal 2012-009584
Application 11/194,177

3
Rejections on Appeal
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1-3 and 5-7 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2009/0141130
A1, published Jun. 4, 2009 (filed Oct. 27, 2008 claiming priority to U.S.
Patent Application No. 10/620,098, filed on Jul. 14, 2003) (“Ortiz”).
2. The Examiner rejects claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ortiz.
3. The Examiner rejects claims 8-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ortiz and U.S. Patent No. Re. 33,559, issued Mar.
26, 1991 (“Fallacaro”).
4. The Examiner rejects claims 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ortiz, Fallacaro, in view of U.S. Patent App.
7,486,324, issued Feb. 3, 2009 (filed Apr. 17, 2003) (“Driscoll”).

ISSUE
Based upon our review of the administrative record, Appellants’
contentions, and the Examiner’s findings and conclusions, the pivotal issue
before us follows:
Does the Examiner err in finding that Ortiz discloses a “a sound
capturing device capable of recording sound associated with viewing
directions for the visual images; and a motion capturing device capable of
recording motion associated with viewing directions for the visual images”
within the meaning of Appellants’ claim 1 and the commensurate limitations
of claims 5, 15, and 16?

Appeal 2012-009584
Application 11/194,177

4
ANALYSIS
We agree with Appellants that the portions of Ortiz identified by the
Examiner do not explicitly or inherently disclose the disputed features of
claim 1 (or claim 1). (Br. 4-5.) Specifically, we agree with Appellants that
paragraph [0082], cited by the Examiner as disclosing sound and motion
recording (Ans. 4, 8-9), merely “describes video broadcasting, with no
mention of audio broadcasting in combination therewith,” (Br, 4) and does
not disclose “recording motion associated with viewing directions for the
visual images” (Br. 4-5).
While portions of Ortiz (¶¶ [0006], [0052], [0099]) describe
broadcasting and playing audio signals, we find no disclosure in Ortiz of
recording audio in conjunction with video or any structure (combination of
components) to perform the functionality. Further, nothing in Ortiz
describes the capability of “recording motion associated with viewing
directions for the visual images” as recited in claim 1. We construe this
motion recording to mean “associated directional motion (Spec. ¶¶ [0005],
[0022]) such as gyroscopic motion, linear velocity, rotational velocity,
acceleration, pitch, and / or yaw (Spec. ¶ [0030]). Although the video
capture devices described by Ortiz may be capable of capturing motion
across in or across an image field, nothing in Ortiz describes video capture
in the direction of the image field (i.e., movement of the video capture
device).
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to conclude
that Ortiz fails to disclose the recited features of Appellants’ claim 1, and the
rejection of claim 1 fails to establish a prima facie case of anticipation.
Appellants’ independent claim 5 includes limitations of commensurate
Appeal 2012-009584
Application 11/194,177

5

scope. Appellants’ dependent claims 2, 3, 6, and 7 depend on and stand with
claims 1 and 5, respectively. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-7.
With respect to claim 4, rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable
over Ortiz, claim 4 is dependent on and stands with claim 1 for the reasons
discussed supra. Further, Ortiz does not disclose any processor, much less a
processor capable of determining the source of particular sounds or motions.
With respect to independent claims 15 and 16, rejected under § 103 as
being unpatentable over Ortiz and Fallacaro, claim 15 includes limitations of
similar scope to claim 1 and claim 16 includes limitations similar in scope to
claim 5. The Examiner does not explain how Fallacaro cures the
deficiencies of Ortiz discussed with respect to claim 1 supra. Thus, we
conclude that the rejection of claims 15 and 16 fails to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of independent claims 15 and 16, as well as dependent
claims 8-14 (dependent on claim 5, discussed supra) and dependent claim 17
(dependent on claim 16).
With respect to dependent claims 18-21, rejected under § 103 as being
unpatentable over Ortiz, Fallacaro, and Driscoll, the Examiner does not
explain how Fallacaro and/or Driscoll cures the deficiencies of Ortiz
discussed with respect to claim 1 supra. Thus, we conclude that the
rejection of claims 18-21 fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims
18-21.

Appeal 2012-009584
Application 11/194,177

6
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-3
and 5-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 4
and 8-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-3 and 5-7 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of c claims 4 and 8-21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

REVERSED

pgc