Yang Cai

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 16, 2021

2019006067 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 16, 2021)

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.
12/669,685 05/12/2010 Yang Cai 08-104-US 6265
718 7590 03/16/2021
Reed Smith LLP
P.O. Box 488
PITTSBURGH, PA 15230-0488
EXAMINER
VAZQUEZ COLON, MARIA E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2482
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/16/2021 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):
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte YANG CAI1
____________________

Appeal 2019-006067
Application 12/669,685
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 8, 10, 12, 19 through 23, and 32 through 42 have been
canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). According to Appellant, Carnegie Mellon University is the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-006067
Application 12/669,685

2
INVENTION
The disclosed and claimed invention relates generally to a system with
a plurality of multiple resolution cameras including a camera resolution
module configured for instructing at least one of the multiple resolution
cameras to operate at a first resolution at a first period of time and at a
second resolution at a second period of time. Abstract. Claim 1 is
reproduced below.
1. A system comprising:
a plurality of multiple resolution (MR) cameras, wherein
each of the plurality of MR cameras has a single type of image
sensor, wherein each MR camera in the plurality of MR
cameras is configured to capture a field of view that is
independent of any fields of view captured by other MR
cameras in the plurality of MR cameras, and wherein a location
of each MR camera is independent of locations of other MR
cameras in the plurality of cameras;
a display device configured to:
receive a first plurality of images at the same
frame rate from the plurality of MR cameras, wherein
each image in the first plurality of images corresponds to
an MR camera in the plurality of MR cameras and
wherein at least two of the first plurality of images are at
different resolutions; and
concurrently display the first plurality of images,
wherein at least two of the first plurality of images are
displayed at different resolutions; and
one or more computing devices communicably
connected to the plurality of MR-cameras, wherein the
one or more computing devices comprise:
one or more processors; and
one or more memories operatively coupled to at
least one of the one or more processors and having
instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least
Appeal 2019-006067
Application 12/669,685

3
one of the one or more processors, cause at least one of
the one or more processors to:
receive a user eye position from an eye
tracking device;
identify an MR camera in the plurality of
MR cameras by associating the user eye position to
an image in the first plurality of images
concurrently displayed on the display device and
associating the image with a corresponding MR
camera in the plurality of MR cameras;
transmit a plurality of commands to the
plurality of MR cameras, wherein the plurality of
commands comprise one or more first commands
configured to cause the identified MR camera to
operate at a first resolution and one or more second
commands configured to cause one or more other
MR cameras in the plurality of MR cameras to
operate at a second resolution different from the
first resolution;
receive a second plurality of images from
the plurality of MR cameras; and
transmit the second plurality of images to
the display device, wherein the second plurality of
images are displayed concurrently on the display
device.
EXAMINER’S REJECTIONS2
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 8, 10, 12, 19 through 23, and 32
through 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Jones (US
8,446,509 B2; May 21, 2013) and Sakai (US 2005/0078184 A1;

2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief filed February 22,
2019 (“Appeal Br.”); Reply Brief filed August 12, 2019 (“Reply Br.”) Final
Office Action mailed February 23, 2018 (“Final Act.”); and the Examiner’s
Answer mailed June 12, 2019 (“Ans.”).
Appeal 2019-006067
Application 12/669,685

4
Apr. 14, 2002). Final Act. 3–12.
The Examiner rejected claims 39 through 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Jones, Sakai and Uebbing (US 2004/0212677 A1;
Oct. 28, 2004). Final Act. 12–14
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, the
Reply Brief, the Examiner’s rejections, and the Examiner’s response to
Appellant’s arguments. Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of
error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 8, 10, 12, 19 through 23, and
32 through 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Rejection based upon Jones and Sakai
With respect to this rejection, the Appellant’s arguments present us
with two issues:
1) Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Jones and
Sakai teach or suggest the limitation directed to each camera being
configured to capture a field of view that is independent of the
fields of view of the other cameras and wherein the location of the
camera is independent of the locations of the other cameras?
2) Did the Examiner present a reasoned rationale with rational
underpinnings for combining the systems of Jones and Sakai?
With respect to the first issue, Appellant’s arguments are directed to
Sakai, the reference the Examiner relied upon to teach this limitation.
Appeal Br. 5–9, Reply Br. 1–3 Appellant argues that Sakai teaches a system
where plural cameras are used to detect a number of persons in an image
capture area and that when the number of persons exceeds a threshold a
command is issued to adjacent cameras to change the image capture region.
Appeal Br. 5. Appellant cites to Figure 4–6 and argues that although
Appeal 2019-006067
Application 12/669,685

5
Figure 4 shows non-overlapping image capture regions, after the command
is issued to the cameras the image capture regions of the cameras are
changed such that the overlap as shown in Figure 6. Appeal Br. 5–8. Thus,
Appellant argues that because the image capture regions overlap, the fields
of view of the cameras must necessarily overlap. Appeal Br. 8. Further,
Appellant argues that because Sakai teaches the cameras are nearby, other
cameras which have overlapping fields of view, the location of the
individual cameras are dependent upon each other. Appeal Br. 9
The Examiner finds that Sakai discloses in Figure 5 three cameras
10a-c with respective image regions Ra, Rb, and Rc directly below the
camera (which are considered to be the fields of view of the cameras).
Ans. 15. Further, the Examiner finds that Figure 5, also shows that the
cameras are independent and therefore Sakai teaches the disputed limitation.
Ans. 15.
Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection. Initially, we note that Appellant’s Specification
provides no disclosure of the locations of the cameras relative to each other,
nor the field of view of the cameras, and therefore provides no guidance as
to how the disputed limitations are to be interpreted.3 As such we consider
the Examiner’s findings regarding the monitoring regions of Sakai to be the
equivalent of Appellant’s claimed field of view as they are both the areas
observed by the cameras. See Sakai Figs. 4 and 5. We concur with the

3We also note that Appellant’s arguments seem to imply that camera’s with
overlapping fields of view are not independent fields of view. We do not
find that this narrow interpretation of the term independent field of view is
supported by the Appellant’s Specification, i.e., independent and
overlapping have different meanings.
Appeal 2019-006067
Application 12/669,685

6
Examiner that in Figures 4 and 5, the cameras are configured with non-
overlapping views which meets the limitation of representative claim 1.
Further, these figures show that the cameras are configured to capture a
field of view that is independent from the fields of view of the other
cameras. Sakai also teaches that each camera’s position and angle can be
changed to adjust the image capture region, which can provide overlapping
views, as shown in Figure 6, cited by Appellant. Appeal Br. 5–8; Sakai
¶ 56. We do not consider this teaching, in Figure 6, to show that the
cameras are not configured to have independent fields of views, as Figure 4
clearly depicts use of such a configuration. Further, we are not persuaded
that the cameras are not in locations independent from each other. As
discussed above, Appellant’s Specification, does not provide any guidance
as to how this limitation is to be interpreted, as such the limitation may be
broadly interpreted as the cameras being in a separate housing or being
moved independently of each other, both features Sakai teaches. See Sakai,
Fig. 3 ¶ 56. Accordingly, Appellant’s arguments directed to the first issue
have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and the
claims grouped with claim 1.
With respect to the second issue, Appellant’s arguments are directed
to Jones, and assert that Jones is concerned with using cameras with
overlapping fields of view to ensure that there are no gaps in the larger field
of view. Appeal Br. 10, Reply Br. 4–6. As such Appellant argues that it
would be counterintuitive and non-obvious to modify the system to make the
camera locations or the field of views independent as claimed. Appeal
Br. 11. Further, Appellant contends,
Appeal 2019-006067
Application 12/669,685

7
the entire purpose of the system of Jones is to achieve coverage
of a panoramic area by placing sensors adjacent to one another,
statically mounting the sensors, and ensuring that the sensors
have overlapping fields of view. Separating the sensors of Jones
to make them location independent and to remove overlap
between fields of view would defeat the entire purpose of the
system of Jones.
Appeal Br. 11 (emphasis omitted).
The Examiner’s rejection finds that the skilled artisan would combine
the teachings as it “allows for increased covered area enhancing the
experience of the user and increasing the efficiency of a monitoring
operation. It is further noted it has been held that rearranging parts of an
invention involves only routine skill in the art.” Final Act 6–7. Further, the
Examiner cites to Sakai paragraph 9 to support the conclusion that it would
improve efficiency.
On this record, Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us that the
Examiner failed to provide sufficient “articulated reasoning with some
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). As discussed above, Appellant’s
arguments focus on Jones’ teachings of creating a panoramic view from
cameras with overlapping fields of view. While this is one of the features of
Jones, Jones also teaches that in systems with plural cameras of multiple
resolutions, having some of the cameras producing low resolution images
reduces the amount of bandwidth needed. See Jones, col. 7, ll. 25–41, col.
15, ll.13–26. It is this bandwidth saving teaching of Jones, which the
Examiner is combining with the camera arrangement of Sakai. See, e.g.,
Final Act. 5–6. As such, we are not persuaded of error by Appellant’s
arguments that the combination is counterintuitive and changes the principal
Appeal 2019-006067
Application 12/669,685

8
operation of Jones (which are focused on the overlapping image feature of
Jones) as these arguments are not applicable to the bandwidth saving
features of Jones which the Examiner’s rejection relies upon. Accordingly,
Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claim 1. Appellant has not presented separate
arguments directed to the other claims similarly rejected and thus has
grouped claims 8, 10, 12, 19 through 23, and 32 through 38 together with
claim 1. As such we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims
1, 8, 10, 12, 19 through 23, and 32 through 38.
Rejection based upon Jones, Sakai, and Uebbing
With respect to this rejection, Appellant argues that the combination
of the references do not teach the claim 39 limitation directed to identifying
objects of interest in a first field of view and generating two images of the
field of view at a first and second resolution. Appeal Br. 11–13.
Appellant’s arguments are directed to Uebbing, the reference the Examiner
relied upon to teach this limitation, and asserts that the Uebbing’s detection
camera (which produces an image at a first resolution) and the tracking
cameras (which produce an image at a second resolution) have different
fields of view and as such the Uebbing does not teach the disputed
limitation. Appeal Br. 13, Reply Br. 7.
The Examiner responds to Appellant’s arguments, and finds:
In Uebbing, Figure 5 and corresponding descriptive paragraphs
0030-0031, low resolution images of the scene within a
detection camera’s field of view are captured. When the motion
of an object is detected the location of the motion is identified.
Based on said identified location a tracking camera
corresponding to said location is operated in order to capture
high resolution images (par. 0030-0031). It is noted both the
Appeal 2019-006067
Application 12/669,685

9
tracking camera and the detection camera capture images
corresponding to a detected location, the area corresponding to
the detected location is being interpreted as the field of view.
Therefore, Uebbing teaches the limitation “a first image of the
field of view at the first resolution and a second image of the
field of view at the second resolution”.
Ans. 16–17.
Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 39. Appellant’s Specification contains no
discussion of fields of view, how they relate to objects of interest or having
different resolution images of the same fields of view. As such Appellant’s
Specification provides no guidance as to how to interpret this limitation.
Against this lack of disclosure in Appellant’s Specification, we do not find
that the Examiner’s interpretation of the field of view as being an “area
corresponding to the detected location” is unreasonable, and we concur with
the Examiner’s finding that Uebbing teaches or suggests the disputed
limitation. Ans. 17. Claim 39 recites that the objects are in the field of view
and that the images are of the field of view which supports the Examiner’s
interpretation that the field of view is an area corresponding to the object of
interest. Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief and the Reply Brief are
directed to the field of view of the cameras in Uebbing being different,
however, claim 39 does not recite that the field of view is the field of view
of the camera, nor does Appellant’s Specification compel such an
interpretation. Accordingly, Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us
of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 39 or claims 40 through 42
similarly rejected and grouped with claim 39. Thus, we sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 39 through 42.
Other issues
Appeal 2019-006067
Application 12/669,685

10
In the event of further prosecution of this application, we leave it to
the Examiner to evaluate whether Appellant’s Specification complies with
35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as providing sufficient written description of the
invention claimed. The written description requirement serves “to ensure
that the inventor had possession, as of the filing date of the application relied
on, of the specific subject matter later claimed by him; how the specification
accomplishes this is not material.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262
(CCPA 1976) (citation omitted). Specifically, the Examiner is encouraged
to consider whether Appellant’s originally filed Specification demonstrates
Appellant had possession of
a) the claim 1 limitation directed to the multiple resolution cameras
being “configured to capture a field of view that is independent
of any fields of view captured by other MR cameras in the
plurality of MR cameras, and wherein a location of each MR
camera is independent of locations of other MR cameras in the
plurality of cameras” ; and
b) the claim 39 claim limitation directed to the “identify any objects of
interest within a field of view (FOV); generate a first image of
the FOV at the first resolution and a second image of the FOV
at the second resolution in response to identifying any objects
of interest within the FOV.”
Appeal 2019-006067
Application 12/669,685

11
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§ 
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 8, 10,
12, 19–23,
32–38
103 Jones, Sakai 1, 8, 10,
12, 19–23,
32–38

39–42 103 Jones, Sakai,
Uebbing
39–42
Overall
Outcome
1, 8, 10,
12, 19–23,
32–42

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). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED