10306509 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 29, 2011)

Ex Parte Sablak et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJul 29, 2011

10306509 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 29, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte SEZAI SABLAK, DAVID N. KATZ, MIROSLAV TRAJKOVIC, MICHAEL D. BOLOTINE, and DAMIAN M. LYONS ____________________ Appeal 2009-009903 Application 10/306,509 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, MARC S. HOFF, and CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-6, 8-12, 23-28, and 32-39. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal 2009-009903 Application 10/306,509 2 Field Code Ch STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ claimed invention relates to an automated video tracking system (Spec. ¶ [0006]). Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A video tracking system comprising: a video camera having a field of view, said camera having a camera speed, the camera speed being continuously 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 after an initial tracking analysis cycle, said processor receives subsequent video images from the camera, and selectively calculates an adjustment rate and adjusts the speed of the camera in accordance with the calculated adjustment rate during an entire time interval between receipt of each subsequent video image; said processor programmed to detect a moving target object in said video images and adjust the speed of said camera to track said target object between receipt of each subsequent video image, said processor adjusting said camera at a plurality of varied adjustment rates. REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1-5, 8, 9, 12, 23-28, and 32-39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Kuno (Japanese Patent Publication H5-346958) and Wixson (US 6,396,961 B1). The Examiner rejected claims 6, 10, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Kuno, Wixson, and Yata (US 2002/0051057 A1). Appeal 2009-009903 Application 10/306,509 3 Field Code Ch ANALYSIS Claims 1, 23, 28, and 32 The Examiner finds Kuno discloses all the features of Appellants’ claim 1, except Kuno does not expressly disclose calculating an adjustment rate and adjusting the speed of a camera based on the calculated rate (Ans. 4- 5, 24). The Examiner relies on Wixson for disclosing calculating an adjustment rate and adjusting the speed of a camera in accordance with the calculated adjustment rate (Ans. 5-6). In particular, the Examiner cites the following: “image slip may be converted to camera angular and position corrections that will re-align the 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.” (Ans. 6; Wixson, col. 8, ll. 13-20) Appellants contend Wixson’s disclosure relating to velocity control is a conclusory statement, and therefore the Examiner cannot properly rely upon it in establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. Thus, the combination of Kuno and Wixson does not disclose Appellants’ claimed invention (Br. 5-6). We disagree. Appellants’ contention that Wixson’s velocity control disclosure amounts to a conclusory statement is without merit. The Examiner has provided “‘articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (Ans. 25-26). Further, a reference may be relied on for all that it reasonably suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art. See Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Appellants have not attempted to explain why Wixson does not disclose the limitation for which it is relied upon, namely, calculating an adjustment rate Appeal 2009-009903 Application 10/306,509 4 Field Code Ch and adjusting the speed of a camera (Br. 6). Therefore, the obviousness rejection of claim 1 is sustained. Appellants present similar arguments for claims 23, 28, and 32 (Br. 13-14, 15-17). With respect to claim 32, Appellants argue Kuno does not disclose automatically beginning a subsequent analysis cycle after making an adjustment command (Br. 16). However, as the Examiner finds, Kuno discloses tracking a mobile object by repeating the process of detecting a positional deviation between subsequent images and controlling a camera rack to account for the positional change of the mobile object in the images (Ans. 26-27; Kuno ¶¶ [0021], [0023]). This disclosure meets the limitation of automatically beginning a subsequent analysis cycle after making an adjustment command. Thus, the rejection of claims 23, 28, and 32 is also sustained. Claims 2-5, 8, 9, 24-27, and 33-39 Appellants argue the Examiner improperly relies on Kuno for disclosing limitations in dependent claims 2-5, 8, 9, 24-27, and 33-39 which further limit the adjustment rate and adjustable speed limitations of independent claims 1, 23, and 32. Because the Examiner admits Kuno fails to disclose the adjustment rate and adjustable speed limitations, Appellants assert the Examiner cannot rely on Kuno to teach these additional limitations. (Br. 6-8, 9-10, 14-15, 17-20) However, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2-5, 8, 9, 24-27, and 33-39 is based on a combination of references (Ans. 27), and as discussed above, the Examiner relies on Wixson for disclosing adjusting the speed of a camera based on an adjustment rate. The Examiner further asserts it would have been obvious to combine the additional features of Kuno with Wixson’s speed adjustment to meet the Appeal 2009-009903 Application 10/306,509 5 Field Code Ch limitations of claims 2-5, 8, 9, 24-27, and 33-39 (Ans. 27-28). Appellants have not explained why the combination of Kuno and Wixson fails to meet these claim limitations, but rather, focus solely on Kuno’s failure to disclose camera speed adjustment (Br. 6-8, 9-10, 14-15, and 17-20). Therefore, the rejection of claims 2-5, 8, 9, 24-27, and 33-39 is sustained. Claims 6, 10, and 11 Appellants assert Yata does not disclose calculating an adjustment rate for continuously adjusting camera speed, and thus fails to cure the deficiencies of Kuno and Wixson (Br. 8-9, 10-12). However, the Examiner finds Wixson discloses this feature, as discussed above. Therefore, the rejection of claims 6, 10, and 11 is sustained. Claim 12 Appellants “traverse the Examiner’s use of Official Notice” with respect to claim 12 (Br. 12-13). However, Appellants do not explain why the Official Notice is improper (Ans. 28-29). Further, evidence supporting Official Notice has already been made of record in the present application (Ans. 29). Therefore, the rejection of claim 12 is sustained. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-6, 8-12, 23-28, and 32-39 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 kis