Andrew L.P. Wu et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 19, 2019

14982737 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 19, 2019)

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. 14/982,737 12/29/2015 Andrew L.P. WU 092283.000854 6853 23377 7590 08/19/2019 BakerHostetler Cira Centre 12th Floor 2929 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19104-2891 EXAMINER DOBBS, KRISTIN SENSMEIER ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2486 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/19/2019 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): eofficemonitor@bakerlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ANDREW L.P. WU and SUDEEP MOHAN ____________ Appeal 2018-006855 Application 14/982,7371 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before, NORMAN H. BEAMER, ADAM J. PYONIN, and GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction over the pending rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. 1 Appellants identify Avigilon Corporation as the real party in interest. (App. Br. 2.) Appeal 2018-006855 Application 14/982,737 2 THE INVENTION Appellants’ disclosed and claimed invention is directed to a multi- headed camera assembly that provides video-based surveillance. (Spec. ¶ 2.) Independent claims 1, 12, 16, and 20, reproduced below, are illustrative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A multi-headed camera assembly, comprising: a base comprising a plurality of tracks; a plurality of support frames; and a plurality of image sensor assemblies, each image sensor assembly comprising a housing, a lens assembly, and a support mechanism configured to allow a quick and efficient assembly of the lens assembly within the housing, wherein each image sensor assembly is removably coupled to the base by a support frame among the plurality of support frames, each support frame including: a guide member for guiding tilt movement of each image sensor assembly, and a support base movably coupled to a track among the plurality of tracks so as to enable pan movement of each image sensor assembly. 12. An image sensor assembly support apparatus, comprising: a support base capable of moving along a track so as to enable pan movement of an image sensor assembly; a release member capable of releasing the support base to allow the support base to move along the track and locking the support base at a desired position on the track; a pair of gimbals for rotatably receiving a ball joint of the image sensor assembly; and a guide member configured to guide tilt movement of the image sensor assembly. Appeal 2018-006855 Application 14/982,737 3 16. An image sensor assembly amongst a plurality of image sensor assemblies in a multi-headed camera assembly, comprising: a housing cover for each image sensor assembly amongst the plurality of image sensor assemblies, the housing cover configured to receive a lens assembly; and a support mechanism for each image sensor assembly amongst the plurality of image sensor assemblies, the support mechanism configured to allow a quick and efficient assembly of the lens assembly within the housing cover. 20. A method of adjusting an image sensor apparatus of a multi-headed camera assembly, comprising: panning an image sensor apparatus among a plurality of image sensor apparatus along a track among a plurality of tracks, further comprising: disengaging a release member of a support frame from the track, moving the image sensor apparatus along the track to a desired position, and locking the image sensor apparatus at the desired position by engaging the release member with the track; and tilting the image sensor apparatus along a guide member of the support frame, further comprising: loosening a connecting member of the support frame from the image sensor apparatus, moving the image sensor apparatus along a guide groove formed in the guide member to a desired position, and locking the image sensor apparatus at the desired position by tightening the connecting member to the image sensor apparatus. REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 7, 11, 12, and 16–19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Henninger III et al. (US 2013/0147963 A1, pub. June 13, 2013) (hereinafter “Henninger”), in view of McCormack (US 2007/0116458 A1, pub. May 24, 2007). (Final Act. 3.) Appeal 2018-006855 Application 14/982,737 4 The Examiner rejected claims 3–6, 8–10, 13–15, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Henninger, McCormack, and DiRisio (US 2004/0066564 A1, pub. Apr. 8, 2004). (Final Act. 13.) ISSUES ON APPEAL Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following issues:2 Issue One: Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Henninger and McCormack teaches or suggests “a multi-headed camera assembly comprising: a base comprising a plurality of tracks, a plurality of support frames, and a plurality of image sensor assemblies . . .,” as recited in independent claim 1, and the “image sensor assembly amongst a plurality of image sensor assemblies in a multi-headed camera assembly” of independent claim 16. (App. Br. 11–20, 24–26.) Issue Two: Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Henninger and McCormack teaches or suggests “a release member capable of releasing the support base to allow the support base to move along the track and locking the support base at a desired position on the track,” as recited in independent claim 12. (App. Br. 20–23.) Issue Three: Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Henninger, McCormack, and DiRisio teaches or suggests “panning an image sensor apparatus among a plurality of image sensor apparatus along a 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the positions of the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Jan. 9, 2018); the Reply Brief (filed June 19, 2018); the Final Office Action (mailed Aug. 10, 2017); and the Examiner’s Answer (mailed May 31, 2018), for the respective details. Appeal 2018-006855 Application 14/982,737 5 track among a plurality of tracks,” and “moving the image sensor apparatus along the track,” as recited in independent claim 20. (App. Br. 26–27.) ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments. Arguments Appellants could have made but chose not to make are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). First Issue In finding that the combination of Henninger and McCormack teaches or suggests the claim 1 limitation at issue, the Examiner relies on Henninger’s disclosure of a surveillance camera system assembled using one of a group of camera heads, in which a camera head assembly module includes a camera head that is rotatable relative to a camera head base. (Final Act. 3–4; Henninger Abstract, Figs. 1–2, ¶¶ 18, 8, 17, 12, 41–42, 61.) The Examiner further relies on McCormack’s disclosure of a pant, tilt, and zoom assembly that includes a pan motor and tilt motor. (Final Act. 4–5; McCormack Fig. 1, ¶¶ 12, 1–7.) The Examiner relies on the same portions of Henninger and McCormack in finding Henninger and McCormack teaches or suggests the limitations of independent claim 16. (Final Act. 8– 11.) Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that [t]he language recited in claim 1 does not require that the camera heads in Henninger all be mounted at the same time. Rather, the claim language does not provide a relationship between the “image sensor assemblies” of clam 1, only that they are part of the overall “assembly” Appeal 2018-006855 Application 14/982,737 6 and that “the recitation ‘multi-headed camera assembly’ has not been given patentable weight because the recitation occurs in the preamble.” (Ans. 22, citing In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152 (CCPA 1951).) Appellants argue that “[t]o determine if the preamble is merely introductory, as the Office appears to believe, or represents additional structural limitations, the patent/application in its entirety should be considered.” (Reply Br. 2–3, citing In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1479 (Fed. Cir. 1994.) Appellants contend that because the rejection “limited its analysis to other language in the claims . . . the Office failed to consider the application in its entirety” (Reply Br. 3), and that the disclosure indicates that the use of a multi-headed camera assembly having multiple image sensors “provide[s] a 360 degree panoramic view without blind spots.” (Reply Br. 4, quoting Spec. ¶ 27.) When considering the patentable weight to afford a claim preamble, [t]he preamble of a claim does not limit the scope of the claim when in merely states a purpose or intended use of the invention. However, terms appearing in a preamble may be deemed limitations of a claim when they “give meaning to the claim and properly define the invention.” [citations omitted] In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1479 (Fed. Cir. 1994). We find the terms “multi-headed camera” and “assembly” give meaning to the claim and properly define the invention. Here, the terms “multi-headed camera” and “assembly” relate not just to a purpose or intended use, but further describe structural aspects that define the claimed invention. While “assembly” does not appear defined in Appellants’ claims or disclosure, one skilled in the art would consider the “assembly” appearing in the claim preamble as a Appeal 2018-006855 Application 14/982,737 7 completed product, as opposed to a parts kit.3 Such an interpretation is supported by the body of independent claim 1, which requires that “each image sensor assembly is removably coupled to the base” so that an uncoupled image sensor assembly would be excluded from the claim. Additionally, claim 1 recites a “plurality of tracks” and “a support base movably coupled to a track among the plurality of tracks so as to enable pan movement of each image sensor assembly,” establishing the claimed multi- headed camera assembly requires multiple image sensor assemblies. We similarly deem the preamble of independent claim 16 as limiting. In contrast to the claimed “multi-headed camera assembly,” Henninger teaches “a modular surveillance camera kit” in which the “surveillance camera system” is “assembled” using a single “selected camera head.” See Henninger ¶ 8. McCormack also teaches a surveillance system in which the completed product has “camera 106” having a single “lens assembly 116.” See McCormack ¶ 8. Thus the combination of Henninger and McCormack fails to read on independent claim 1. The Examiner makes an additional finding regarding independent claim 16 that “it would have been obvious to duplicate parts and have multiple image sensor assemblies.” (Final Act. 8, citing In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669 (CCPA 1960).) Such a finding, if correct, would support an obviousness rejection of both independent claims 1 and 16. We agree, 3 For example, the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “assembly” as “the fitting together of manufactured parts into a complete machine, structure, or unit of a machine” and “a collection of parts so assembled.” See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assembly. Appeal 2018-006855 Application 14/982,737 8 however, with Appellants that the duplication of parts rationale of In re Harza, when applied to the combination of Henninger and McCormack, does not establish obviousness, because the duplication of image sensor assemblies produces a new and unexpected result in that multiple image sensor assemblies “provide[s] a 360 degree panoramic view without blind spots.” The Examiner’s finding that “Henninger already teaches the production of a 360 degree image in Fig. 1 and double arrow 20” appears incorrect, as Henninger would not need a rotatable camera head if the single camera lens produced a 360 degree image. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 16, and dependent claims 2–11 and 17–19. Second Issue In finding that the combination of Henninger and McCormack teaches or suggests the claim 12 limitation at issue, the Examiner relies on the disclosure of McCormack of a shroud that is configured to maintain both relaxed and engaged positions, in which teeth arranged about the outer periphery of the shroud mesh with teeth on the outer periphery of a ring latch. (Final Act. 7–8; McCormack, Figs. 1–2, ¶¶ 21–23, 1–7.) Appellants argue “[a]pplicant sees no evidence that McCormack discloses anything closely resembling a track, along which a support base could move” and “McCormack does not disclose a release member that is configured to release a support base so that the support base moves along a track as claimed.” (App. Br. 23.) The Examiner finds, and we agree McCormack teaches a removable unit 210 which includes a shroud 236 that is slidably coupled to a chassis 237. The shroud 236 is configured to maintain a relaxed position (shown in FIG. Appeal 2018-006855 Application 14/982,737 9 1) and an engaged position. In the engaged position, a plurality of teeth 238 arranged circumferentially about an outer periphery 240 of shroud 236 and extending axially toward ring latch 216 are configured to mesh with a complementary plurality of teeth 242 arranged circumferentially about an outer periphery 244 of ring latch 216 and extending axially toward teeth ('track') 238 (para. [0023], Fig. 2). Bias members 248 (also in cited paragraph [0023]) are configured to return shroud 236 to the relaxed position when the axial force applied to shroud 236 is removed (i.e., “release” from engaged position). (Ans. 24, citing McCormack, Figs. 1–2, ¶ 23 (emphasis added).) We see no error in the Examiner’s extensive and detailed findings, and Appellants do not address the Examiner’s findings either in the Appeal or Reply. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 12, and dependent claims 13–15 not argued separately with particularity. See App. Br. 23. Third Issue In finding that the combination of Henninger, McCormack, and DiRisio teaches or suggests the claim 20 limitations at issue, the Examiner relies on the disclosure of DiRisio of cam tracks interior to the wall of a lens barrel. (Final Act. 21–22; DiRisio, Fig. 5, ¶ 27.) Appellants renew their argument based on Henninger’s use of a single lens, arguing that Henninger only discloses a camera kit with interchangeable camera heads, but does not disclose a camera assembly that includes (or could possibly be modified to include) multiple camera heads at the same time, which Henninger would have to disclose in order to be able to teach the limitation of “panning an image sensor apparatus among a plurality of image sensor apparatus along a track among a plurality of tracks.” Appeal 2018-006855 Application 14/982,737 10 (App. Br. 26, emphasis in original.) We agree with Appellants. Independent claim 20 is similar to independent claim 1 in that the claim preamble states “a method of adjusting an image sensor apparatus of a multi-headed camera assembly,” whereas no “multi-headed camera assembly” appears in the claim limitations. Under the reasoning regarding independent claims 1 and 16, supra, we deem independent claim 20’s preamble limiting. Additionally, the limitation of “panning an image sensor apparatus among a plurality of image sensor apparatus [sic] along a track among a plurality of tracks” further establishes that the multi-headed camera assembly contains a plurality of image sensor apparatuses, whereas the combination of the references only teach or suggest a single image sensor apparatus in the surveillance system. For the reasons explained above regarding independent claims 1 and 16, we do not find the combination of Henninger, McCormack, and DiRisio teaches or suggests independent claim 20. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 20. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–11, and 16–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 12–15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. 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-IN-PART