Ex Parte CHAPMAN

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 13, 2019

14675320 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 13, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/675,320 03/31/2015
140 7590
LADAS & PARRY LLP
1040 A venue of the Americas
NEW YORK, NY 10018-3738
03/15/2019
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Karen CHAPMAN
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.
U 019375-6 4693
EXAMINER
IMPERIAL, JAYCEE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2426
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/15/2019 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):
nyuspatactions@ladas.com
nymail@ladas.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KAREN CHAPMAN 1
Appeal2018-007101
Application 14/675,320
Technology Center 2400
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, SHARON PENICK, and
RUSSELL E. CASS, Administrative Patent Judges.
CASS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-22, which constitute all the claims pending in
this application. App. Br. 1. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellant lists Karen Chapman as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief
filed January 16, 2018 ("App. Br.") 1.
2 Rather than repeat the Examiner's positions and Appellant's arguments in
their entirety, we refer to the above mentioned Appeal Brief, as well as the
following documents for their respective details; the Final Action mailed
July 12, 2017 ("Final Act."), the Examiner's Answer mailed May 1, 2018
("Ans."), and the Reply Brief filed July 2, 2018 ("Reply Br.").
Appeal2018-007101
Application 14/675,320
THE PRESENT APPLICATION
The present application is directed to a viewing system for allowing a
user to view live events, such as theater, concerts, ballet, etc., on a display
monitor in a manner that simulates the experience of being in the audience.
Spec. 1-2, 22. According to the Specification, this system is implemented
by using a fixed video camera or multiple fixed-position cameras that
capture images from a single perspective. Id. at 2, 5---6, 13, 22. The system
also includes a video monitor for allowing the user to view the images from
the camera and a touchplate for allowing the user to manipulate the image
stream, such as by zooming or panning. Id. at 2, 5, 10.
Of the pending claims, claims 1, 9, and 21 are independent. Claim 21
provides as follows:
21. A method for a viewer to view an event, the
method comprising the steps of:
(a) transmitting a single video images feed of the
event, wherein the single video images feed is
captured by a single camera from a single fixed
perspective at a wide angle or by a plurality of
cameras from the single fixed perspective at a wide
angle to produce a display having three
dimensional appearance; and
(b) receiving the transmitted single video images
feed of the event by a receiver comprising or
connected to (i) a display screen, (ii) a touchplate,
(iii) a receiver/touchplate network interface for
receiving a set of input signals sent by the
touchplate, and (iv) an image modifier module for
storing the set of input signals sent by the
touchplate and for manipulating the single video
images feed to enable display of a whole or a
portion of images in said feed on the display
2
Appeal2018-007101
Application 14/675,320
screen such that said touchplate is adapted to
control what images in said feed are displayed on
the display screen and to enable the viewer to
move a field of moving images that are displayed
on the display screen so as to permit the viewer to
pan across the moving images without moving or
otherwise changing the fixed perspective of the
single camera or the plurality of cameras and
without switching between different video sources.
App Br. 18-19 (Claims Appendix).
Claims 1 and 9 are similar in many respects to claim 21, but also
include "consisting essentially of' rather than "comprising" transitional
language:
1. A method for viewing an event which consists
essentially of
receiving a stream of images by a receiver
comprising a display screen, wherein the stream of
images is captured by a single camera from a
single fixed perspective at a wide angle or by a
plurality of cameras from the single fixed
perspective at a wide angle to produce a display
having three dimensional appearance,
said receiver being connected to a separate
touchplate, wherein said touchplate is adapted to
control which images in said stream are displayed
on the display screen and to move a field of
moving images that are displayed on the display
screen so as to permit a viewer viewing the display
screen to pan across the moving images without
moving or otherwise changing the fixed
perspective of the single camera or the plurality of
cameras.
3
Appeal2018-007101
Application 14/675,320
9. A system for viewing an event consisting
essentially of
a single camera disposed for capturing a
stream of images from a single fixed perspective at
a wide angle or a plurality of cameras disposed for
capturing the stream of images from the single
fixed perspective at a wide angle to produce a
display having three dimensional appearance,
a receiver for receiving the stream of images
and comprising a display screen,
said receiver being connected to a touchplate
adapted to control which images in said stream are
displayed on the display screen and to move a field
of moving images that are displayed on the display
screen so as to permit a viewer viewing the display
screen to pan across the moving images without
moving or otherwise changing the single fixed
perspective of the single camera or the plurality of
cameras.
Id at 16-17 (formatting modified). Claims 19 and 20 depend on claims 1
and 9 respectively, and add the limitation that "no icons appear on the
display screen." Id. at 18.
THE EXAMINER'S REJECTIONS
Claims 1---6, 8-15, 17, 18, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Choi (US 2011/0265118 Al; published
October 27, 2011) in view of Aman (US 2007/0279494 Al; published
December 6, 2007) and Franko (US 2008/0136839 Al; published June 12,
2008). Claims 7 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Choi, Aman, and Franko, and further in view of Craven
(US 2004/0194147 Al; published September 30, 2004). Claims 19 and 20
4
Appeal2018-007101
Application 14/675,320
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Choi, Aman, and
Franko and further in view of Aagaard (US 2003/0210329 Al; published
November 13, 2003).
The Examiner finds that Choi teaches a system that includes receiving
a stream of images from an external device by a receiver comprising a
display screen. Final Act. 2-3 ( citing Choi ,r,r 199-200). The Examiner
finds that Choi teaches that the external device may be a camera and that the
stream of images can include movies, advertisements, games, VoD files, and
broadcast signals. Final Act. 2-3 (citing Choi ,r,r 120, 199). The Examiner
further finds that Choi discloses a remote controller with a touch pad that is
not physically connected to the display and that can be used to control the
images on the display (for example by moving and zooming). Final Act. 2-
3 ( citing Choi ,r 218; Figs. 6, 22).
The Examiner finds that Aman teaches a method for capturing video
from a sporting event using a stream of images from a single camera from a
single fixed perspective at a wide angle or by a plurality of cameras from the
single fixed perspective at a wide angle to produce a display having three
dimensional appearance. Final Act 3. The Examiner points to paragraph 78
of Aman as disclosing overhead cameras using wide angle lenses. Final
Act. 3. The Examiner points to paragraph 41 of Aman as disclosing filming
a game using a fixed camera. Id.
The Examiner further finds that Franko teaches a video portal for use
in an airplane that captures images from exterior video cameras on the
airplane that do not physically move, the cameras having a wide angle view
that allows video data to be captured and displayed on the portal through a
5
Appeal2018-007101
Application 14/675,320
pan, rotate, or zoom commands from a passenger. Final Act. 4 ( citing
Franko ,r 0040).
In light of these findings, the Examiner finds that the combination of
Choi, Aman, and Franco teaches or suggests the limitations of claims 1, 9,
and 21. Final Act. 2--4, 6-8.
As to claims 1 and 9, the Examiner determines that the phrase
"consisting essentially of' is not entitled to patentable weight "because the
recitation occurs in the preamble." Ans. 10. As to claims 19 and 20, the
Examiner finds that Aagaard teaches the additional limitation in those claims
of a video display in which no icons appear on the display screen, and that it
would have been obvious to combine Aagaard with the combination of Choi,
Aman, and Franko to provide the user with a viewing experience unhindered
by icons. Final Act. 17; Ans. 11.
Appellant alleges that the rejections contain multiple errors. We
address each of these arguments individually in the Analysis section below.
ANALYSIS
After careful consideration of the appealed claims, the evidence of
obviousness relied on by the Examiner and the arguments advanced by
Appellant and the Examiner, we are unpersuaded by Appellant's arguments
on appeal. For the reasons discussed below, we sustain the Examiner's
rejections.
Obviousness of the Claimed Invention
Appellant argues that Choi "has no cameras and therefore cannot
capture a stream of images." Reply Br. 5. This argument is unpersuasive.
Paragraph 199 of Choi teaches that "the image display apparatus 100 may
6
Appeal2018-007101
Application 14/675,320
communicate with the external device 230," and that "[t]he external device
230 can transmit and receive signals directly to and from the image display
apparatus 100." Choi ,r 199. Choi further teaches that "the external device
230 may be ... a camera." Id. We, therefore, agree with the Examiner that
Choi teaches a camera that captures a stream of images.
Appellant next argues that paragraph 78 of Aman teaches the use of
two overhead cameras and does not teach using only one camera, and that
paragraph 41 teaches "images fed from a plurality of perspectives," rather
than a single perspective. App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 4-5. We disagree that the
teachings of Aman are so limited. Paragraph 78 of Aman teaches that "[t]he
approach of filming a sporting event from a fixed overhead view" was
known, and "has been the starting point for other companies, researcher[]s,
and patent applications." Aman ,r 0078 (emphasis added). A person or
ordinary skill would have understood this statement to disclose using one or
more fixed cameras to film a sporting event from a fixed overhead view,
which would include using only a single fixed camera. Although
paragraph 78 goes on to describe a specific prior art system (from the
Machine Vision Group of the University of Ljubljana, Slovakia) that uses
two fixed overhead cameras, a person of ordinary skill would also have
understood the general language at the beginning of this paragraph to teach
that a single camera, as well as two cameras, could be used. Id.
Additionally, we agree with the Examiner that paragraph 41 of Aman
teaches capturing and displaying images from a single camera from a single
fixed perspective, as claimed. The claims are not time-limited, and do not
specify the amount of time during the event that a particular single camera
must capture and display images. Therefore, the broadest reasonable
7
Appeal2018-007101
Application 14/675,320
interpretation of the claim language encompasses a system in which images
from a first single fixed camera are captured and displayed during one
period of time during an event, and images from other cameras are captured
and displayed during another period of time during the event. Paragraph 41
of Aman teaches that it was known to have "a crew of cameramen" who
"would be responsible for filming a game from various angles usingfixed
and/or roving cameras." Aman ,r 41 (emphasis added). We find that this
paragraph of Aman teaches capturing and displaying images using a single
fixed camera from a fixed perspective during a portion of the event, even if
it also teaches that other portions of the event may be captured and displayed
using different cameras from different perspectives.
We further agree with the Examiner that a person of ordinary skill
would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the references.
Choi, Aman, and Franko all teach systems for capturing, displaying, and
manipulating images. In particular, Aman teaches that it was conventional
and well-known to use a fixed camera to capture and display images. Aman
,r,r 41, 78. The combination of these references to teach the claimed
invention is no more than the combination of familiar elements (e.g., fixed
camera, receiver, display, touchplate) according to known methods, and does
no more than yield predictable results. See KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Appellant has made insufficient showing to the
contrary.
Appellant argues that there would have been no motivation to
combine the references because the portions of Aman relied on by the
Examiner (paragraphs 41 and 78) are in the "Background" section of the
Specification, and therefore are different from Aman's invention. App. Br.
8
Appeal2018-007101
Application 14/675,320
11-12; Reply Br. 4--5. We disagree. "The use of patents as references is not
limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions," but rather
"[t]hey are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain." In
re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The disclosures in
paragraphs 41 and 78 of Aman describe systems that were known in the art
and available to the skilled artisan, and thus constitute part of the prior art
for purposes of the patent application at issue here.
Similarly, we disagree with the Appellant's contention that
paragraph 78 of Aman teaches away from the use of a wide angle lens
because it "does not require a wide angle lens." App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 4.
Paragraph 78 of Aman teaches that fixed overhead cameras may have "wide
angle lenses." Id. The fact that Aman teaches that wide angle lenses are not
necessary is not a teaching away. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201
(Fed. Cir. 2004) ("mere disclosure of alternative designs does not teach
away").
The "Consisting Essentially Of' Language in Claims 1 and 9
As to claims 1 and 9, Appellant argues that the "consisting essentially
of' transitional language in those claims distinguish over the prior art
because they require the use of a single fixed perspective, and that the
Examiner erred in finding that this claim language was entitled to no weight
and applying references that teach images captured from multiple
perspectives. App. Br. 13-14; Reply Br. 7-8.
We disagree with the Examiner that the "consisting essentially of'
language in claims 1 and 9 is entitled to no patentable weight because it is in
the preamble. "Consisting essentially of' here is used as a transitional
9
Appeal2018-007101
Application 14/675,320
phrase, and as such, it limits the scope of a claim to the specified materials
or steps "and those that do not materially affect the basic and novel
characteristic(s)" of the claimed invention. See In re Herz, 537 F.2d 549,
551-52 (CCPA 1976). See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure "MPEP"
§ 2111.03. Appellant, however, has the burden of showing that the
introduction of additional steps or components would materially change the
characteristics of Appellant's invention. In re De Lajarte, 337 F.2d 870,
973-74 (CCPA 1964). See MPEP § 2111.03.
Appellant argues that "the basic and novel characteristics of the
invention comprise the use of a camera or cameras that provide images to a
viewer from a single fixed perspective only to replicate the experience of the
viewer when he or she attends, for example, a live performance in person."
App. Br. 13. "Accordingly," Appellant asserts, this language "excludes the
use of a camera or cameras that capture images of an event from a
perspective other than the single fixed perspective required in these claims."
Id.
Appellant's argument that the "consisting essentially of language" in
claims 1 and 9 patentably defines the invention over the prior art are
unpersuasive. As discussed above, Aman teaches filming a sporting event
from a single fixed perspective. As to the Appellant's statement that the
invention "replicate[ s] the experience of the viewer when he or she attends,
for example, a live performance in person," this is simply a generalized
intended benefit of the invention and is not sufficiently clear and definite in
scope to be considered a "basic and novel characteristic of the invention"
that would limit the claims by way of the "consisting essentially of'
language. And, even if it did, the fixed camera of Aman would simulate the
10
Appeal2018-007101
Application 14/675,320
experience of viewing the event in person from a vantage point above the
event, as discussed above.
Claims 19 and 20
Appellant argues that claims 19 and 20 are patently distinguishable
from the prior art because Choi requires manipulation of a pointer (which
Appellant asserts is an icon) on the screen, and thus the prior art does not
teach a system in which no icons appear on the display screen. App. Br. 14--
15; Reply Br. 8.
We are unpersuaded by these arguments. Appellant does not dispute
that Aagaard teaches this limitation, but Appellant instead merely states in
conclusory fashion that there would have been no motivation to combine
Aagaard with Choi because "the principle of operation of Choi requires that
a pointer be dragged from a first area to a second (static) area on a display to
select[] a desired area for zooming in or out." App. Br. 15; Reply Br. 8. We
find no teaching in Choi indicating that the use of a pointer for selecting an
area is essential to the principle of operation of Choi or that teaches away
from alternative ways of selection.
We also agree with the Examiner's finding that a person of ordinary
skill would have had a reason or motivation to modify Choi to have a
display without icons, as taught by Aagaard. As the Examiner reasons, all of
the references are in the same field ( video capture using cameras), and
Aagaard merely teaches a known way of manipulating images that provides
the advantage of not blocking a portion of the user's view of the screen.
Final Act. 17 ( citing Aagard ,r 66). Such a modification would have been no
more than the predictable use of features known in the art of video display
and manipulation. See KSR Int'!, 550 U.S. at 416.
11
Appeal2018-007101
Application 14/675,320
Accordingly, the record supports the Examiner's conclusions of
obviousness, and Appellant's arguments to the contrary are not persuasive.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-22.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-22 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
12