Ex Parte Greb et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 22, 2015

12414736 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 22, 2015)

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2 Claims 5–7, 9, 11–15, and 18–24 have been withdrawn.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