Ex Parte Greb et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 22, 201512414736 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 22, 2015) Copy Citation 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. 12/414,736 03/31/2009 Richard G. Greb 5981-003 1483 24112 7590 07/22/2015 COATS & BENNETT, PLLC 1400 Crescent Green, Suite 300 Cary, NC 27518 EXAMINER GARFT, CHRISTOPHER ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3632 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/22/2015 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte RICHARD G. GREB, ADRIAN R. SANDERSON, and PATRICK L. THIEL ____________ Appeal 2013-005258 Application 12/414,7361 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before LINDA E. HORNER, THOMAS F. SMEGAL, and LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges. SMEGAL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Richard G. Greb et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1–4, 8, 10, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hershenzon (US 7,563,038 B2, iss. July 21, 2009) and Lee (US 6,254,044 B1, iss. July 3, 2001).2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Camera Motion Research, LLC. Appeal Br. 2. 2 Claims 5–7, 9, 11–15, and 18–24 have been withdrawn. Appeal 2013-005258 Application 12/414,736 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1 and 10 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the claimed subject matter, with disputed limitations emphasized. 1. An inertial stabilizer for a camera, the stabilizer comprising: a support assembly comprising a stage that supports a camera and a counterbalance; and a handle assembly connected to the support assembly and comprising: a handle grip; a multi-axis joint connecting the handle grip to the support assembly such that the handle grip and the support assembly move relative to each other in at least two axes of rotation, and configured to isolate the camera from user movement in one or more directions; and an adjustable friction control comprising a friction element configured to apply a varying amount of friction to the multi-axis joint, and to dampen a reaction torque affecting the camera responsive to movement of the stabilizer by controlling an amount of friction applied by the friction element to the multi-axis joint on one or more axes of rotation. Appeal Br. 17, Claims App. ANALYSIS Obviousness of 1–4, 8, 10, 16, and 17 Claims 1, 2, 8, and 10 Appellants argue independent claims 1 and 10, and dependent claims 2 and 8, together in contesting the rejection of these claims as obvious over Hershenzon and Lee. See Appeal Br. 5–14. We select claim 1 as the representative claim for this group such that the remaining claims stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. §41.37(c)(1)(iv). We have considered Appeal 2013-005258 Application 12/414,736 3 Appellants’ arguments raised in the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief, but do not find them persuasive to demonstrate error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable over Hershenzon and Lee. The Examiner finds that Hershenzon discloses an inertial stabilizer for a camera, including a support assembly with a stage and counterbalance, as well as a handle grip with a multi-axis joint, and the Examiner looks to Lee for disclosing “a ball and socket joint/multi-axis joint (22 and 12, Fig. 3) which is used to support a camera on a stage (20, Fig. 3) that is adjustable in a variety of angular positions (about a plurality of axes)” and comprising “an adjustable friction control (24, Fig. 3) comprising a friction element (13, Fig. 3) configured or capable of providing a varying amount of friction (by adjusting the thread of 24 into blocks 13) to compress or decompress blocks (13) about ball 22.” Final Act. 3–5 (emphasis added). The Examiner also finds that “[t]he blocks are also capable of dampening or preventing a reaction torque affecting the camera” and that “[b]y threading screw (242, Fig. 3) into and out of aperture (124), the user is capable of adjusting the friction between the ball (22) and blocks (13) since the blocks are capable of being tightened or loosened against the ball.” Id. at 5. With the foregoing in mind, the Examiner reasons: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the camcorder support of Hershenzon to include the friction control (locking knob) of Lee since Lee states that such a modification would enable the user to position the equipment base (stage) at a desired position. Id. at 5–6 (citing Lee, col. 2, ll. 42–46). Appeal 2013-005258 Application 12/414,736 4 Appellants argue the Examiner erred in failing to give effect to the structural claim recitation of “an adjustable friction control comprising a friction element.” Appeal Br. 8. Appellants contend that this structure should be interpreted in light of the Specification as follows: the specification and drawings fully describe embodiments in terms of particular structural elements (e.g., rotatable control knob, friction disc, biasing members, center pin, post, etc.), as well as their structural relationships (i.e., how those components operate alone and with the other components), and explain how a user operates the adjustable friction control in detail. E.g., Spec., ¶¶ [0028-0043]. Appeal Br. 9. However, the Examiner correctly points out that “the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. rotatable control knob, friction disc, biasing members, center pin, post, etc.) are not recited in the rejected claim(s).” Answer 8. We are not apprised of Examiner error on this point. Appellants’ contention also is not persuasive as it is not commensurate with claims, which do not recite concrete structural elements beyond those that the Examiner has identified as disclosed by Hershenzon and Lee. Appellants also contend that “Lee does not teach or suggest an adjustable friction control comprising a friction element configured to apply a varying amount of friction to the multi-axis joint.” Appeal Br. 11. In particular, Appellants assert that “Lee does not teach or suggest turning the screw to adjust the amount of friction applied between the locked and unlocked positions as claimed.” Id. Rather, Appellants assert, the lock taught by Lee is either locked or unlocked. Id. at 12. However, the Examiner finds: The Lee locking device (24) is turned to drive a threaded stub (242) into a threaded bore (124) to press up against blocks (13) Appeal 2013-005258 Application 12/414,736 5 which compress or put frictional pressure on the ball (22). Due to this configuration, the amount of friction or compression that the blocks exert onto the ball is able to be controlled by the user by the degree in which the stub (242) is threaded through the bore (124). For instance, if the user wishes to exert a great deal of friction, the user would simply continue threading the stub through the aperture as far as it possibly can and if the user wishes to apply little or less friction on the ball, they simply need to not thread the stub through the aperture as far. Answer 8–9 (emphasis added). The Examiner also observes: Appellant appears to be arguing that the friction control device of Lee is a substantial “on and off” locking device which is only capable of being used in two positions “locked” and “unlocked,” however this is not the case. Due to the engagement between the threads of the opening and the stub, there are a variety of different degrees in which the stub can be inserted through the bore. For example, if a child were to use the device to tighten the control knob, they would not be able to tighten the control knob as much as a full grown adult due to their difference in strength. Id. at 9. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that the amount of friction produced between blocks 13 and ball 22 can be varied by the amount the threaded stub 242 is turned. Appellant also argues “the friction lock of Lee is not configured to ‘dampen a reaction torque affecting the camera responsive to movement of the stabilizer by controlling an amount of friction applied by the friction element to the multi-axis joint on one or more axes of rotation,’ as claimed.” Appeal Br. 12. However, the Examiner has the better argument, explaining that the Lee screw lock is capable of adjusting the amount of friction between the multi-axis joint (ball and socket) by adjusting the degree in which the friction element (13) is Appeal 2013-005258 Application 12/414,736 6 tightened around the ball. Therefore, since the friction element can be adjusted to be tightened or loosened about the ball, a reaction torque which affects the camera responsive to movement of the stabilizer is capable of being dampened. Answer 9–10. Thus, the Examiner finds that the amount of friction produced between blocks 13 and ball 22 is controlled by the degree to which the threaded stub 242 is turned. Appellants do not provide any persuasive evidence or reasoning contradicting any of the above-noted findings. Still further, Appellants argue that “[n]o one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reason to modify Hershenzon according to Lee as the Examiner asserts,” because “Hershenzon already includes such a locking mechanism in his disclosed tripod.” Appeal Br. 13 (citing Hershenzon, col. 5, ll. 17–19 and Figs. 3, 6, for the quotation “[t]he support 10 further comprises means for controlling and locking the articulated joint 41 so as to adjust the angular position between the arm 24 and the trunnion fork 26”). However Appellant misreads the Examiner’s rejection. As the Examiner explains, “the joint [in Hershenzon] which the Examiner relies upon for being the multi-axis joint is the joint created between [seat] 27 and [ball] 57 as shown in Fig. 4 which is an entirely different joint than joint 41[also shown in Fig. 4].” Answer 11. Appellants do not explain how the joint 41, which controls the angle between the arm 24 and the fork 26 (Hershenzon, col. 5, ll. 14–19), is relevant to the Examiner’s rejection, which cites the joint between seat 27 and ball 57 (Ans. 11). Accordingly, we are not apprised of Examiner error on this issue. For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 8, and 10 over Hershenzon and Lee. Appeal 2013-005258 Application 12/414,736 7 Claims 3 and 16 Appellants, in arguing for the patentability of claims 3 and 16, incorporate several arguments previously raised for claim 1. See Appeal Br. 14–15. For the same reasons provided above, we find these arguments not persuasive of error in the rejection of claims 3 and 16 as unpatentable over Hershenzon and Lee. Claims 4 and 17 Appellants argue that claims 4 and 17 are more specific than claim 1, from which they depend either directly or indirectly, by defining a “second access of rotation [that] is different than the first access of rotation.” Appeal 15–16. More specifically, Appellants contend that the Examiner’s citation to Lee as evidence that this functionality is known in the art is “conclusory” and that “Hershenzon fails to teach or suggest such an adjustable friction control to effect (sic) the amount of friction that is applied to a single axis of rotation,” and that “[t]here is nothing in Hershenzon that would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to consider the same thing for more than one axis of rotation. Appeal Br. 15–16. Appellants are simply attacking Hershenzon in isolation, rather than as combined with Lee. Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures. See Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097. Furthermore, as we previously determined, the Examiner relied upon Lee for teaching a multi–axis joint that “is adjustable in a variety of angular positions (about a plurality of axes).” See Final Act. 5. As such, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Lee’s multi-axis joint discloses a Appeal 2013-005258 Application 12/414,736 8 structure that is capable of applying a user-defined amount of force on two different axes of rotation to increase and decrease the amount of friction applied to each axis. Appellant also contends that claim 17 recites a “first” adjustable friction control that varies the amount of friction to more than one axis of rotation. However, as the Examiner finds, the adjustable friction control taught by Lee also varies the friction to a plurality of axes. Appellants’ claims do not recite a “second” adjustable friction control. As we are instructed by our reviewing court, “limitations are not to be read into the claims from the specification.” In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321(Fed. Cir. 1989)). For the foregoing reasons, we find these arguments not persuasive of error in the rejection of claims 4 and 17 as unpatentable over Hershenzon and Lee. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejections. 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED rvb Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation