Ex Parte Barcala

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 27, 2016

12909502 (P.T.A.B. May. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/909,502 10/21/2010 Sergio BARCALA
10850 7590 06/01/2016
Alan M, Weisberg
Christopher & Weisberg, P.A.
200 East Las Olas Boulevard
Suite 2040
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
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.
1281-206U (R-SN-00060) 6017
EXAMINER
LUO,KATEH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2488
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/01/2016 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):
ptomail@cwiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SERGIO BARCALA
Appeal2014-007302
Application 12/909,502
Technology Center 2400
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 2, and 4--20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
STATEMENT OF THE INVENTION
According to Appellant, the claims are directed to a method and
system for converting privacy zone planar images to their corresponding
Appeal2014-007302
Application 12/909,502
pan/tilt coordinates (Abstract). Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative
of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for establishing a privacy zone in a video security
system, the method comprising:
receiving planar coordinate data defining a plurality of
privacy zone comer points, the planar coordinate data taken
from a still image;
converting each privacy zone comer point to corresponding
points on a sphere, the points on the sphere being defined by
spherical coordinates, each of the spherical coordinates
including a radius, a polar angle and an azimuth angle;
converting each of the corresponding spherical coordinates to
corresponding pan/tilt coordinates; and
storing the corresponding pan/tilt coordinates in a storage
device.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Lee
Gopinath
US 2006/0192853 Al
US 2009/0015670 Al
REJECTION
Aug. 31, 2006
Jan. 15,2009
Claims 1, 2 and 4--20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gopinath and Lee (Final Act. 3-9). 1
1 The Examiner withdrew the rejection of claim 3 in the Answer (Ans. 2).
The Examiner includes claim 3 in the stated claim rejection heading (Ans.
3); however, claim 3 is not included in the specifics of the rejection.
2
Appeal2014-007302
Application 12/909,502
We have only considered those arguments that Appellant actually
raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to
make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012).
ISSUES
35 US.C. § 103(a): Claims 1-20
Appellant asserts the invention as recited, is not obvious over
Gopinath and Lee (App. Br. 3-12). The issues presented by the arguments
are:
Issue 1: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Gopinath and Lee teaches or suggests "converting each privacy zone comer
point to corresponding points on a sphere" and "converting each of the
corresponding spherical coordinates to corresponding pan/tilt coordinates,"
as recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 8 and 15?
Issue 2: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Gopinath and Lee teaches or suggests "the x and y coordinates being
mapped to great circles of the sphere," as recited in claim 5, and similarly
recited in claims 11 and 1 7?
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues Gopinath does not disclose the claimed conversion
of each privacy zone comer corresponding to a sphere because "Gopinath's
algorithm is based on right angle triangle geometry that lacks the inherent
Therefore, we consider the inclusion of claim 3 in the heading as harmless
error and as such, consider the rejection of claim 3 as withdrawn.
3
Appeal2014-007302
Application 12/909,502
curvature of a sphere" (App. Br. 6). More specifically, according to
Appellant, "Gopinath's angular coordinates ... lack the claimed radial
component (r) that is inherent in spherical coordinates" (App. Br. 6; Reply
Br. 5---6).
Appellant also argues Gopinath does not disclose the claimed
conversion of the claimed spherical coordinates to corresponding pan/tilt
coordinates (App. Br. 7-9). Specifically, Appellant argues Gopinath does
not teach "two separate conversions ... as explained in Applicant's
Specification i-f [0034]" (App. Br. 8).
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments. We agree with the
Examiner's finding that Gopinath's conversion of each privacy zone into
absolute angular coordinates discloses converting each privacy zone comer
point to corresponding points on a sphere and further, agree the angular
coordinates describe the claimed spherical coordinates (Final Act. 3; Ans.
11). Specifically, we agree with the Examiner's finding that the angular
coordinates disclosed in Gopinath disclose the claimed spherical coordinates
because each of the spherical coordinates includes a radius (for example,
AB) (Ans. 11-12). Appellant has not persuaded us in Pan/Tilt/Zoom
camera coordinates, angular and spherical coordinates are not the same
concept. We additionally agree with the Examiner's finding that Lee
discloses a three dimensional coordinate system modeled in a hemisphere
form (id.; see e.g. i-f 71 ). Nor has Appellant persuaded us, given the
teachings of Gopinath and Lee, an ordinarily skilled artisan would find it
uniquely challenging or beyond their skill to convert the disclosed angular
coordinates and radius to corresponding points on a sphere. Therefore, we
are unpersuaded an ordinarily skilled artisan would fail to understand the
4
Appeal2014-007302
Application 12/909,502
combination teaches, or at least suggests "converting each privacy zone
comer point to corresponding points on a sphere."
In addition, we agree with the Examiner's finding that the use of
angular coordinates (spherical coordinates), as the pan/tilt/zoom (PTZ)
coordinates is a reasonable interpretation (Ans. 12-13). Thus, we are not
persuaded by Appellant that the combination of Gopinath and Lee fails to
teach or suggest "converting each of the corresponding spherical coordinates
to corresponding pan/tilt coordinates," as recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Gopinath and Lee teaches or suggests the limitations as
recited in claim 1 and claims 8 and 15, not separately argued. Therefore, we
sustain the rejection of claims 1, 8, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for
obviousness over Gopinath and Lee.
Appellant does not separately argue dependent claims 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10,
12-14, 16, and 18-20 instead, relies on arguments set forth for their
respective independent claims (App. Br. 9). Therefore, we sustain the
rejection of claims 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12-14, 16, and 18-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Gopinath and Lee.
With respect to claims 5, 11, and 17, Appellant argues Gopinath and
Lee do not teach the claimed mapped great circles of the sphere (App. Br.
11-12). Specifically, Appellant argues Gopinath's image plane cannot
correspond to a sphere, and Gopinath's use of right angle triangle geometry
is contradictory to the use of spherical equations (id.).
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments. Specifically, as set
forth above, Appellant has not persuaded us the combination of Gopinath
and Lee fails to teach or suggest the recited converting steps of claim 1 (Ans.
5
Appeal2014-007302
Application 12/909,502
13). We further agree with Examiner's finding that Lee shows exemplary
mapping of great circles of a sphere based on pan, tilt, and zoom coordinate
mapping (id.). Appellant has not proffered sufficient evidence or argument
to persuade us Lee teaches away from the claimed "x and y planar
coordinates being mapped to great circles of the sphere" (Reply Br. 7).
Indeed, Appellant has not proffered any evidence or argument Lee criticizes,
discredits, or otherwise discourages modifying a reference to arrive at the
claimed invention. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Appellant's arguments that the Examiner's Answer introduces "New
Grounds of Rejection" (Reply Br. 3) are misplaced and thus, not
considered. 2
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Gopinath and Lee teaches or suggests the limitations as
recited in claim 5 and claims 11 and 17, not separately argued. Therefore,
we sustain the rejection of claims 5, 11, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for
obviousness over Gopinath and Lee.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4--20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gopinath and Lee is AFFIRMED.
2 If Appellant believes that the Examiner's Answer contained a new ground
of rejection not identified as such, Appellant should have filed a petition
under 37 C.F.R. 1.181(a) within two months of mailing of the Examiner's
Answer requesting that the grounds of rejection set forth in the Answer be
designated as new grounds of rejection.
6
Appeal2014-007302
Application 12/909,502
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7