Ex Parte Sablak et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 21, 2016

13249536 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/249,536 09/30/2011
27268 7590 09/23/2016
Faegre Baker Daniels LLP
300 NORTH MERIDIAN STREET
SUITE 2700
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Sezai Sablak
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
BSS0002-0l-US 8063
EXAMINER
PASIEWICZ, DANIEL M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2661
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/23/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
inteas@faegrebd.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte SEZAI SABLAK, DAVIDN. KATZ,
MIROSLAV TRAJKOVIC, MICHAEL D. BOLOTINE,
and DAMIAN M. LYONS
Appeal2014-007684
Application 13/249,536
Technology Center 2600
Before JEREMY J. CURCURI, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-19. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10-14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Kuno (JP 05-34958; Dec. 27, 1993) and Wixson et
al. (US 6,396,961 Bl; May 28, 2002). Final Act. 5-12. 1
1 An English translation of Kuno was provided by Appellants in an
information disclosure statement filed July 17, 2012. References herein to
portions of Kuno refer to this translation.
Appeal2014-007684
Application 13/249,536
Claims 3, 4, 9, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Kuno, Wixson, and Yata (US 2002/0051057 Al; May 2,
2002). Final Act. 12-16.
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to "a video camera system for tracking a
moving object." Spec. ,-i 2. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below:
1. A video tracking system comprising:
a video camera having a field of view, said camera being
selectively adjustable wherein adjustment of said camera varies
the field of view of said camera; and
at least one processor operably coupled to said camera
wherein said processor automatically and continuously acquires
video images acquired by said camera and continuously
selectively adjusts said camera;
said processor programmed to execute a process for
detecting a moving target object in said video images, said
video images including a first image and a second image,
estimating a target value based on a comparison of said first and
second images, said target value being a function of a velocity
of said target object, selecting a first adjustment rate, said first
adjustment rate being a function of said target value, and
adjusting said camera at said first adjustment rate, wherein after
selecting the first adjustment rate the processor automatically
receives a subsequent image and performs said process again
based on a comparison of the subsequent image and at least one
of the first image and the second image to select a second
adjustment rate, the camera being continuously moved at the
first adjustment rate until being commanded to move at the
second adjustment rate.
2
Appeal2014-007684
Application 13/249,536
ANALYSIS
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1, 2, 5-8, 10-14, AND 16-19 OVER
KUNO AND WIXSON
The Examiner finds Kuno and Wixson teach all limitations of claim 1.
Final Act. 5-7. The Examiner relies on Kuno for all limitations of claim 1,
except for the adjustments of the camera being the recited adjustment rates,
for which the Examiner relies on Wixson. Final Act. 6-7. The Examiner
reasons "at the time the invention was made it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art to control the camera disclosed by Kuno
using the camera speed (adjustment rate) as taught by Wixson, for such
control is well-known in robotics and control theory." Final Act. 7 (citing
Wixson, col. 8, 11. 17-20).
Appellants present the following principal arguments:
I. "[T]he combination of Kuno and Wixson fails to disclose a
camera continuously moved at a first adjustment rate until being
commanded to move at a second adjustment rate, as recited in independent
claim 1." App. Br. 9. "Kuno discloses a system that completely moves the
camera to the new position before beginning a subsequent image analysis,
resulting in the camera having the stationary intervals that the claimed
system of the present application seeks to avoid." App. Br. 9-10.
Wixson merely discloses that "velocity control" may be used to
command motors for correcting image slip (Wixson, col. 8, Ins.
10-20). Accordingly, Wixson does not disclose or suggest that
the camera is continuously moved at a first selected adjustment
rate until being commanded to move at the second selected
adjustment rate, as recited in claim 1.
App. Br. 10. "The proposed modification to Kuno would improperly change
Kuno' s principal of operation from a position-based command system to a
3
Appeal2014-007684
Application 13/249,536
velocity-based command system." App. Br. 10. "[T]he position-based
control of Kuno is key to the operation of Kuno' s system, namely for
calculating the positional deviation ~x, ~y, and therefore the proposed
modification to a velocity-based control would render Kuno unsatisfactory
for its intended purpose[.]" App. Br. 11.
11. "[T]he Examiner appears to identify the positional deviation of
paragraph [0021] ofKuno as the target value of independent claim 1 (Office
Action, page 5). Independent claim 1 recites that the target value is a
function of the velocity of the target object." App. Br. 11.
We are not convinced by these arguments of error in the Examiner's
findings. Nor are we convinced of any error in the Examiner's conclusion of
obviousness.
Regarding (i), we agree with the Examiner that, in light of the
collective teachings of the references, it would have been obvious to a
skilled artisan to continuously move the camera at a first adjustment rate
until being commanded to move at a second adjustment rate, as recited in
independent claim 1.
Kuno (,-i,-i 16-23) discloses position-based control of a camera.
Wixson (col. 8, 11. 17-20) discloses both position-based control and velocity-
based control of a camera: "The motors may be commanded to achieve this
correction using either position control or velocity control, two well-known
concepts in robotics and control theory." When Kuno's teaching of
position-based control is combined with Wixson's teaching ofvelocity-
based control (and disclosure of both position and velocity control as being
well-known techniques), modifying Kuno to use velocity-based control
would have been a predictable use of prior art elements according to their
4
Appeal2014-007684
Application 13/249,536
established functions - an obvious improvement. As the U.S. Supreme
Court has explained:
When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it,
either in the same field or a different one. If a person of
ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103
likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique
has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary
skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar
devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless
its actual application is beyond his or her skill. Sakraida [ v. Ag
Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273 (1976)] and Anderson's-Black Rock [,
Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57 (1969)] are
illustrative-a court must ask whether the improvement is more
than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their
established functions.
KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
Even if we assume, as proffered by Appellants (see App. Br. 9-10;
see also Reply Br. 2-3), and contrary to the Examiner's explanation in the
Response to Arguments section of the Answer (see Ans. 4-5), that Kuno
incrementally moves the camera such that the camera has stationary
intervals, this does not change our conclusion. To the extent Kuno has
stationary intervals, this is a result of the camera reaching a current
commanded position before a next commanded position is provided. When
Kuno is modified for velocity control based on Wixson, the camera would
reach a current commanded velocity (claim l's "first adjustment rate")
before a next commanded velocity (claim l's "second adjustment rate") is
provided.
Further, such modification to Kuno does not change Kuno's principle
of operation because the modified system, in tracking velocity instead of
position, calculates velocity deviations instead of position deviations. Nor
5
Appeal2014-007684
Application 13/249,536
does the modification to Kuno render Kuno unsatisfactory for its intended
purpose. In short, we see no reason why the simple substitution into Kuno
of velocity-based control for Kuno's position-based control would not have
been obvious to a skilled artisan, particularly in light of Wixson' s disclosure
that position control and velocity control and both well-known concepts in
robotics and control theory. See Wixson (col. 8, 11. 17-20).
Regarding (ii), this argument does not show any error in the
Examiner's findings because we agree with the Examiner that Kuno' s target
position is a function of velocity. Ans. 6. Further, we emphasize that Kuno
alone utilizes position-based control; however, Kuno as modified in light of
Wixson' s teachings utilizes velocity-based control.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, as well as
claims 2, 5-8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 19, which are not argued separately
with particularity.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 further recites: "said camera is
constantly in motion when tracking movement of the target object."
Appellants further argue: "Nowhere does Wixson disclose that the camera is
constantly in motion when tracking movement of a target object." App. Br.
14.
This argument does not show any error in the Examiner's findings and
reasons, and we agree with the Examiner that the combined teachings of
Kuno and Wixson, by using velocity-based control, teach or suggest the
disputed limitation. See Final Act. 11.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 12.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 further recites: "selectively adjusting at
a variable rate each of a panning orientation of said camera and a tilt
6
Appeal2014-007684
Application 13/249,536
orientation of said camera." Appellants further argue: "Kuno and Wixson,
alone or in combination, do not disclose adjusting the camera at a selectively
variable adjustment rate includes selectively adjusting at a variable rate each
of a panning orientation of the camera and a tilt orientation of the camera."
App. Br. 14.
This argument does not show any error in the Examiner's findings and
reasons. We agree with the Examiner that Kuno (,-i 19) teaches adjusting
panning and tilting. See Final Act. 12.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 18.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 3, 4, 9, AND 15 OVERKUNO,
WIXSON, AND YATA
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 further recites camera panning rate being a
function of velocity and camera tilting rate being a function of velocity.
Appellants further argue:
Kuno and Wixson, alone or in combination, do not disclose
adjusting the camera at a selected panning rate which is a
function of the velocity of a target object along an x-axis and at
a selected tilting rate which is a function of the velocity of the
target object along a y-axis.
App. Br. 12.
This argument does not show any error in the Examiner's findings and
reasons as we agree with the Examiner that Kuno (,-i 19) teaches adjusting
panning and tilting. See Final Act. 16. Further, we emphasize that Kuno
alone utilizes position-based control; however, Kuno as modified in light of
Wixson' s teachings utilizes velocity-based control.
7
Appeal2014-007684
Application 13/249,536
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 4, as well as
claims 3, 9, and 15, which are not argued separately with particularity.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-19 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l.136(a)(l ).
AFFIRMED
8