Ex Parte Chu

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 16, 2012

11616443 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 16, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ANDREW CHU
____________________

Appeal 2010-009950
Application 11/616,443
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before THU A. DANG, JAMES R. HUGHES,
and GREGORY J. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-009950
Application 11/616,443

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-9, 11-20, and 22-30 (App. Br. 2). Claims 10 and 21 have been
canceled (id.). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

A. INVENTION
Appellant’s invention is directed to a video system capable of
providing a virtual community of user equipment for sharing camera feeds
of an event; wherein, each user may remotely control any one of the cameras
which are capable of viewing the event from different perspectives
(Abstract).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method comprising:

controlling a remote camera to view an event from a plurality of viewing
perspectives; and

participating in a virtual community to share viewing of the event, wherein
members of the virtual community can exchange respective views of the
event.

Appeal 2010-009950
Application 11/616,443

3
C. REJECTION
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Lohman 2005/0289627 A1 Dec. 29, 2005
Frederick 7106360 B1 Sept. 12, 2006
Brattesani 2006/0294012 A1 Dec. 28, 2006
Mottur 7,382,397 B2 June 3, 2008

Claims 1, 4-6, 8, 9, 13, 15-17, 19, 20, 22, and 24 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brattesani in view of
Lohman.
Claims 2, 3, 11, 12, 14, 23, and 26-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brattesani in view of Lohman and
Mottur.
Claims 7, 18, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Brattesani in view of Lohman and Frederick.
Claim 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Brattesani in view of Lohman, Mottur, and Frederick.

II. ISSUE
The dispositive issue before us is whether the Examiner has erred in
determining that the combination of Brattesani and Lohman teaches or
would have suggested “controlling a remote camera,” and “participating in a
virtual community,” “wherein members of the virtual community can
exchange respective views of the event” (claim 1, emphasis added). In
particular, the issue turns upon whether the combined teachings of Brattesani
and Lohman at least suggest controlling a camera and participating in a
Appeal 2010-009950
Application 11/616,443

4
virtual community, wherein members of a virtual community are capable of
exchanging views of an event.

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Brattesani
1. Brattesani discloses a system having one or more cameras 10
installed in a facility 12; wherein, the cameras having microphones provide a
video and audio feed to a remote user (“virtual guest”) who cannot attend an
event (¶ [0021]). The cameras 10 are equipped with motorized position
controls such that remote control is enabled for controlling the position and
zoom of the cameras (¶ [0028]).
Lohman
2. Lohman discloses virtual community terminals 10 which
communicate with the web servers 56, exchanging video and audio data
from each camera 16 of a corresponding virtual community terminal 10 with
other virtual community terminals 10 in the same group (¶ [0044]).
3. Each virtual community terminal 10 displays the exchanged
video and audio data from other virtual community terminals 10 as one or
more inset images 64 on the main image of the event 66; wherein, each inset
image 64 displays a respective viewer at one of the terminals 10 watching
the event (¶ [0045]).

Appeal 2010-009950
Application 11/616,443

5
Mottur
4. Mottur discloses a method and system that enables more than
one user 48 to control a camera 16 over a network interface, including a
dynamic queuing feature whereby users 48 can subscribe or register (using
user names, accounts, passwords, and login information) to access the web
server 64 (Fig. 3 and 4; col. 14, ll. 55-65). Based on the user’s status as a
subscriber or non-subscriber, the web server 64 generates a camera control
queue that provides priority to subscriber users 48 (col. 15, ll. 16-18).
5. The user can relinquish camera control by selecting the exit
option 84 on interface 70 (Fig. 3 and 4; col. 14, ll. 47-50).

IV. ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 4-6, 8, 9, 13, 15-17, 19, 20, 22, and 24
Appellant contends that “cameras 16 [disclosed in Lohman] are
controlled by each participant, or member of the virtual community, and
cause an exchange of respective views of the participants, which will appear
as inset images 64 on a screen to be viewed by other participants; [therefore,
the] cameras 16 do not provide for exchanging respective views of the
event” (App. Br. 7, emphasis omitted). However, the Examiner finds “that
the Brattesani reference specifically discloses multiple cameras … within a
system … used for capturing ‘an event’ from a plurality of viewing
perspectives taking place within a particular facility” (Ans. 18). The
Examiner finds that “viewing of ‘an event’ or ‘the event’ is accomplished
fully by the system within the Brattesani reference” (id.).
We give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir.
Appeal 2010-009950
Application 11/616,443

6
1997). Claim 1 does not place any limitation on what “virtual community”
means, includes, or represents other than there is participation in the
community and the community comprises members. The Specification
discloses that a virtual community includes a real-time service provider
subsystem for permitting users via user equipment to attend an event using
an array of camera sets (Spec. ¶ [0014]). Accordingly, we give “virtual
community” is broadest reasonable interpretation as a community in which
members can participate.
We note that claim 1 requires a step of “controlling” a remote camera
and a step of “participating” in a virtual community, but does not positively
recite any step of viewing an event or sharing the viewing of the event.
Instead, claim 1 merely recites that the “controlling” step is “to view an
event” and the “participating” step is “to share viewing of the event.” We
find such “to view an event” language to be the intended purpose of the
controlling step and such “to share viewing of the event” language to merely
represent a statement of intended purpose of the participating step. Such
intended purposes will not limit the scope of the claim because they merely
define a context in which the invention operates. Boehringer Ingelheim
Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir.
2003).
Furthermore, we note that claim 1 does not require any step of
exchanging views of an event, but rather merely recites that “members of the
virtual community can exchange respective views of the event” (claim 1,
emphasis added). That is, claim 1 merely requires that the members of the
virtual community are able to exchange views of an event.
Appeal 2010-009950
Application 11/616,443

7
Thus, we give “controlling a remote camera to view an event” and
“participating in a virtual community to share viewing of the event, wherein
members of the virtual community can exchange respective views of the
event” the broadest reasonable interpretation as controlling a remote camera
and participating in a community so that the members of the community are
able to share views, as consistent with the Specification and as defined in
claim 1.
Brattesani discloses a system having one or more cameras having
microphones that provide a video and audio feed of an event to a remote
user (“virtual guest”) who cannot attend; whereby the virtual guest may
remotely control the position and zoom of the camera (FF 1). We find
Brattesani to disclose “controlling a remote camera” claim 1. We also find
Brattesani to disclose a “virtual community” comprising of virtual guests
and attending guests and find Brattesani’s virtual guest feature includes
“participating in a virtual community” (claim 1). Furthermore, Brattesani
discloses that the position and zoom of the camera are controlled to provide
video feed of an “event.” Thus, even if we were to give “to view” and “to
share viewing” patentable consideration, we find Brattesani to disclose
controlling a remote camera “to view” an event and participating in the
community “to share viewing.”
In addition, Lohman discloses virtual community of terminals having
viewers which communicate with the web servers, exchanging video and
audio data from each camera (FF 2). Each camera provides video and audio
data of each respective viewer to the server which is displayed on each
terminal as an inset image alongside the image of the event (FF 3). We find
community of terminals is a virtual community that exchanges respective
Appeal 2010-009950
Application 11/616,443

8
views. In particular, we find that Lohman’s virtual community enables
participating in a virtual community “to share viewing of the event,”
wherein members of the virtual community “can exchange respective views”
(claim 1).
Accordingly, we find that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Brattesani in view
of Lohman. Further, independent claims 13 and 22 having similar claim
language and claims 4-6, 8, 9, 15-17, 19, 20, and 24 (depending from claims
1, 13, and 22) which have not been argued separately, fall with claim 1.
Claims 2, 11, 12, 14, 23, and 26-29
As to claim 2, Appellant contends that Mottur does “not disclose or
suggest the claimed ‘online ticket box office to purchase a ticket for the
event’” and that “[t]here is no one-to-one correspondence in Mottur such
that a ticket maps to the remote camera.” (App. Br. 9). However, the
Examiner finds that “[t]he functionality of the ‘online ticket box office’ is to
enable a user to obtain digital information, or a ‘ticket,’ required to gain
access to the event via the remote digital camera, which is what the web
server disclosed within Mottur accomplishes” (Ans. 21). The Examiner
notes that “each piece of digital information obtained and validated by the
web server corresponds to the identification information provided by the
user to the web server and the user gaining access/taking control of a remote
camera, corresponding to a ‘ticket,’ and thus meet the qualifications for the
claimed ‘digital certificates’” (Ans. 22).
Claim 2 does not place any limitation on “online ticket box office”
other than it is communicated with, and the Specification is silent as to a
definition other than the “box office” is accessed by a control console 109 to
Appeal 2010-009950
Application 11/616,443

9
purchase a ticket (Spec. ¶ [0020]). In fact, the term “online ticket box” in
“online ticket box office” in claim 2 is merely describing the office/entity
being communicated with but does not change the functionality of or
provide any additional function to the claimed “communicating” step. That
is, this term is merely describing an entity, i.e., the type of entity being
communicated with without changing how the entity affects the
communication.
When descriptive material is not functionally related to the claimed
medium, the descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from the
prior art in terms of patentability. See In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed.
Cir. 2004) and In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 1983). That is,
the descriptive material will not be given patentable weight absent a new and
unobvious functional relationship between the descriptive material and the
medium. See In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1582-1583 (Fed. Cir. 1994); Ngai,
367 F.3d at 1339.
We note further that “to purchase a ticket for the event” merely
represents intended purpose of the communicating step. Thus, claim 2
merely requires that the step of communicating with an entity such as “an
online ticket box office,” but does not positively recite a step of purchasing a
ticket. Thus, we find that “to purchase a ticket for the event, wherein the
ticket corresponds to a set of digital certificates and maps to the remote
camera” will not limit the scope of the claim because they merely define a
context in which the invention operates, and thus give “communicating with
an online ticket box office” its broadest reasonable interpretation as
communicating with any entity (to receive data).
Appeal 2010-009950
Application 11/616,443

10
Mottur discloses a method and system that enables a user to control a
camera over a network interface, including a dynamic queuing feature
whereby when the user subscribes to access the web server (wherein the user
is given a user name, account, password, and other login information), the
user is given priority within the queue (FF 4 and 5). We adopt the
Examiner’s finding that the user name, account, password, and other login
information comprises data (digital certificates) and maps to each camera.
That is, we find that Mottur’s system having user subscriptions comprises
communicating with an entity.
In view of our claim construction above, we find that the combination
of Brattesani and Lohman, further in view of Mottur at least suggests
providing “communicating with an online ticket box office to purchase a
ticket for the event, wherein the ticket corresponds to a set of digital
certificates and maps to the remote camera” (claim 2).
Accordingly, we find that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Brattesani in view
of Lohman and Mottur. Further, independent claim 26 having similar claim
language and claims 3, 11, 12, 14, 23, and 27-29 (depending from claims 1,
13, 22, and 26) which have not been argued separately, fall with claim 2.
Claim 3
Appellant argues that “[m]erely because a user may leave a queue and
relinquish control of a camera, this does not equate to a revocation of a set of
digital certificates and the obtaining of a new ticket responsive thereto”
(App. Br. 10). However, the Examiner finds that “because the disclosed
login information and privileges can associate a user with a specific region
… and camera,” “it is also concluded by the Examiner that there is a ‘one-to-
Appeal 2010-009950
Application 11/616,443

11
one correspondence’ within Mottur wherein a ticket, or digital information
obtained by the user, maps to a particular remote camera” (Ans. 21). The
Examiner notes that “the digital acceptance/validation of the user login
information and association of the user with specific privileges and
categories and admittance of the user into a digital camera control queue
meet the limitations and intentions of the claimed ‘set of digital certificates’”
(Ans. 22-23).
Claim 3 does not place any limitation on “digital certificates,” thus,
we give “obtaining a new ticket for the event by revoking the set of digital
certificates, wherein the new ticket maps to another remote camera” its
broadest reasonable interpretation as obtaining data corresponding to the
event and a remote camera by relinquishing other data.
As noted supra, Mottur discloses that the user may login to the system
and acquire control of a camera (FF 4). The user can relinquish camera
control by exiting the session (FF 5). We find that the exiting of the session
and logging into the system again includes the step of obtaining new login
information (digital certificates) by revoking the old set of login information
(digital certificates). That is, we find that Mottur’s login process enables a
user to “obtaining a new ticket for the event by revoking the set of digital
certificates, wherein the new ticket maps to another remote camera” (claim
3).
Accordingly, we find that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Brattesani in view
of Lohman and Mottur.

Appeal 2010-009950
Application 11/616,443

12
V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-9, 11-20, and 22-30 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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

tkl