Ex Parte Gupta et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 31, 2017

13781240 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2017)

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.
13/781,240 02/28/2013 Himaanshu Gupta 0202.0012-DIV 9277
129628 7590 09/05/2017
MH9 TWTinnlnav T aw Omim T T P (AviailnrG
EXAMINER
William J. Brogan
1951 Kidwell Drive
CHOU, ALAN S
Suite 550 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1 ysons Corner, VA ZZloZ 2451
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/05/2017 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):
docketing @ mh21aw .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HIMAANSHU GUPTA, ANDREW J. CHOSAK,
GEOFFREY R. TAYLOR, PAUL C. BREWER, NIELS HAERING,
and ALAN J. LIPTON
Appeal 2017-004616
Application 13/781,240
Technology Center 2400
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, DENISE M. POTHIER, and
JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.
POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 13—21 and 31—39. Claims 1—12 and 22—30 have been
withdrawn. App. Br. 5.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Action (Final Act.)
mailed January 26, 2016, (2) the Appeal Brief (App. Br.) filed July 1, 2016,
(3) the Examiner’s Answer (Ans.) mailed November 30, 2016, and (4) the
Reply Brief (Reply Br.) filed January 27, 2017.
Appeal 2017-004616
Application 13/781,240
The Invention
Appellants’ “invention is directed to a system and method for
automatically acquiring the calibration parameters of a PTZ camera.” Spec.
12. Pan-tilt-zoom (PTZ) cameras create an active camera system for video
security and can operate in wide-angle mode or PTZ mode. Id. ^ 3,5. For
example, the system can be operated in wide-angle mode and, when a target
of interest is detected, switched to PTZ mode for zooming in on or tracking
the target. Id. ^ 5. In the PTZ mode, high-resolution images of the target are
captured. Id. Calibrating PTZ cameras ensures proper operation, and in this
invention, includes determining a zoom and magnification profile (e.g.,
2500) of the PTZ camera. Id. 6—7, 96—97, Figs. 24—25.
Claim 13 is reproduced below with emphasis:
13. A method of determining a zoom and magnification
profile of a pan-tilt-zoom (PTZ) camera in a camera system
comprising:
executing a plurality of zoom commands with the PTZ
camera, wherein a first zoom command of the plurality of zoom
commands sets the PTZ camera to a starting zoom level,
wherein the zoom commands physically change optics of a lens
of the PTZ camera;
capturing a plurality of images with the PTZ camera,
wherein images in the plurality of images are captured after a
zoom command from the plurality of zoom commands has been
executed;
estimating, by the camera system, a plurality of image
magnifications based on images from the plurality of images;
determining, by the camera system, a zoom and
magnification profile of the PTZ camera based on the plurality
of image magnifications and the plurality of zoom commands,
wherein the zoom and magnification profile comprises a record
of actual magnifications at given zoom levels', and
calibrating the PTZ camera using the zoom and
magnification profile.
2
Appeal 2017-004616
Application 13/781,240
App. Br. 22 (Claims App’x).
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Ahiska US 2005/0007477 A1 Jan. 13,2005
(“Ahiska ’477”)
Marman US 2009/0219387 A1 Sept. 3,2009
Ahiska US 2012/0038776 A1 Feb. 16,2012
(“Ahiska ’776”)
The Rejections
Claims 13—21, 32, 33, 35, 36, 38, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Marman and Ahiska ’776. Final Act. 2—6.
Claims 31, 34, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Marman, Ahiska ’776, and Ahiska ’477. Id. at 7—8.
OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER MARMAN AND AHISKA ’776
Regarding representative claim 13,2 the Examiner finds Marman
teaches its limitations, except (1) the zoom commands physically change
optics of a lens of the PTZ camera, (2) the zoom and magnification profile
comprises a record of actual magnification at given zoom levels, and (3)
calibrating the PTZ camera using the zoom and magnification profile. Final
Act. 2-4 (citing Marman || 32, 33, 36, 65, 66, 70, and 72). The Examiner
turns to Ahiska ’776 to teach or suggest the above missing features. Id. at
A-5 (citing Ahiska ’776 H 7, 19, 37, 39, 42, 44, 54, 55, 65, 66, 69, 73-75,
133).
2 Appellants argue claims 13—21, 32, 35, and 38 as a group. App. Br. 9-14.
We select independent claim 13 as representative. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
3
Appeal 2017-004616
Application 13/781,240
Appellants present two central arguments. App. Br.
9-15. First, Appellants assert combining Marman’s “all-digital virtual
zoom” with Ahiska ’776’s “physical optical zoom” “is physically and
technologically incompatible.” Id. at 9. In essence, Appellants argue that
the proposed combination would change the principle of operation of both
references. Id. at 9-12; Reply Br. 4. Second, Appellants contend the
combination fails to teach a zoom and magnification profile comprising a
record of actual magnifications at given zoom levels and instead teaches
cameras having all-digital zoom, such as Marman’s camera and Ahiska
’776’s master camera, where the zoom and magnification are the same and
do not require a profile. App. Br. 12—13.
ISSUES
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 13 by finding
that Marman and Ahiska ’776 collectively would have taught or suggested
I. the zoom commands physically change optics of a lens of the PTZ
camera and
II. the zoom and magnification profile comprises a record of actual
magnifications at given zoom levels?
ANALYSIS
Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claim 13.
4
Appeal 2017-004616
Application 13/781,240
I.
Appellants argue that combining “Marman’s no-moving-parts all-
digital zoom camera” with Ahiska ’776’s PTZ camera’s lens, such as the
disclosed slave camera that “use[s] a mechanical optical zoom” in Ahiska
’776, “would require altering the fundamental principal of operation of both
cameras, and there is no technical evidence on the record to support such a
proposed modification.” App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 5. We are not persuaded.
Ahiska ’776 teaches various PTZ camera systems having a master
wide-angle video camera with digital zoom capabilities along with a slave
PTZ camera with optical zoom capabilities. Ahiska ’776 H 73, 131, 133,
Figs. 1 A—6. Specifically, Ahiska ’776 teaches slave PTZ cameras have
higher resolution image for a region of interest (Rol) than would be possible
with the zooming capability of a digital master camera. Ahiska ’776 1 69,
cited in Final Act. 4. As such, Ahiska ’776 teaches camera systems that
have mechanical optical zoom lens, which physically change optics, are
known and including the physically-changing optics with Marman’s camera
system would provide the desirable result of (1) proving higher resolution
images for Rols than all-digital zoom camera and (2) controlling the zoom
level at a finer grain level. See Final Act. 4—5 (citing Ahiska ’776 H 7,
69,133); see also Ahiska ’776 172.
As such, the proposed combination does not destroy Marman’s
camera or change its principle of operation to provide video surveillance
with a high-resolution camera and to capture high-quality, magnified
images. See Marman, Abstract. Rather, the proposed combination enhances
Marman, such that its PTZ camera system (see Marman 136) executes zoom
commands by physically changing lens optics as taught by Ahiska ’776,
5
Appeal 2017-004616
Application 13/781,240
permitting control at a fine grain level and obtaining higher resolution
images of objects. Final Act. 4—5. Moreover and in contrast with
Appellants’ characterization (App. Br. 11), Ahiska ’776 teaches
implementing a mechanical optical zooming technique may be a “less
preferred embodiment.” Ahiska ’776 1133. This teaching, however, does
not destroy Marman’s principle of operation to survey and capture high
quality images or teach away from the combination. Rather, digital and
optical zooming were known options in the art, and one skilled in the art
would have recognized how to combine such zooming systems or
interchange one such zooming system for another. See Ahiska ’776 1133,
cited in Ans. 4.
Appellants recognize “Ahiska itself combines an all-digital zoom
master camera with a PTZ physical zoom slave camera.” Id. at 11. In
response, Appellants contend Ahiska HI6 uses image processing to combine
separate images of the master and slave camera but “never combines
functional mechanical lens elements of its PTZ slave camera with the digital
signal processing of its master camera.” Id. Appellants also assert that “the
mere existence of Ahiska’s invention is evidence that all-digital optics of
digital zoom cameras, such as Marman’s, cannot be combined with optics
that zoom by physically changing lens properties.” App. Br. 10. We are not
persuaded.
As noted above, Ahiska ’776 obtains images using the slave camera’s
mechanical lens (e.g., physically changes lens optics) of a PTZ camera and
is not solely used for image processing. Also, claim 13 does not require
combining a mechanical lens with digital signal processing. See App. Br. 22
(Claims App’x). Nor does the rejection propose such a modification. See
6
Appeal 2017-004616
Application 13/781,240
Final Act. 5. Furthermore, the test for obviousness does not require bodily
incorporation of Ahiska ’776’s lens with Marman’s camera. In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). We thus disagree that “Ahiska’s
disclosure of a mechanical PTZ camera is, at best, irrelevant to the issue of
technological incompatibility between Ahiska and Marman.” Reply Br. 5.
Given the above findings, we determine the combination would not
require substantial reconstruction and redesign of the elements in order to
arrive at the claimed “executing a plurali ty of zoom commands with the PTZ
camera . . . the zoom commands physically change optics of a lens of the
PTZ camera” in claim 13,
On balance, the record supports the Examiner did not err in
determining Marman and Ahiska ’776 would teach or suggest “the zoom
commands physically change optics of a lens of the PTZ camera” as recited
in claims 13, 16, and 19.
II.
Appellants next argue Marman and Ahiska ’776 do not teach or
suggest “the zoom and magnification profile comprises a record of actual
magnifications at given zoom levels.” App. Br. 12—13. In particular,
Appellants argue that “all-digital zoom cameras such as Marman’s camera
and Ahiska ’776’s master camera, zoom and magnification are the same”
(emphasis omitted) and one skilled in the art “would recognize that the
camera having all-digital zoom does not require a zoom and magnification
profile.” Id. at 13. Yet, this argument does not address the combination of
Ahiska ’776’s slave camera, which includes a mechanical zoom lens as
previously discussed.
7
Appeal 2017-004616
Application 13/781,240
Appellants further contend the cited passages in Ahiska ’776 do not
“relate to a record of magnification at a plurality of zoom levels.” Id. at 14
(referring to Ahiska ’776 Tflf 40, 44, 65, 66). Of relevance, claim 13 recites
“determining ... a zoom and magnification profile of the PTZ camera based
on the plurality of image magnifications and the plurality of zoom
commands, the zoom and magnification profile comprises a record of actual
magnifications at given zoom levels.” Id. at 22 (Claims App’x). As such,
the claimed “zoom and magnification profile” is based on zoom commands
and image magnifications and comprises actual magnification records at
given zoom levels.
The Examiner relies on both Marman and Ahiska ’776 to teach the
above limitations. Final Act. 3^4 (citing Marman || 65, 66, 70, 72), 5
(citing Ahiska ’776 Tflf 55, 65, 66); Ans. 5 (citing Ahiska ’776 Tflf 19, 42, 44,
55, 65, 66). In particular, Appellants do not dispute Marman teaches
determining a zoom and magnification profile of a PTZ camera based on
image magnifications and zoom commands as recited. See App. Br. 12—14;
Reply Br. 6. As such, any argument concerning Marman failing to teach this
feature has been waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Regarding the specific limitation of the determined “zoom and
magnification profile comprises a record of actual magnifications at given
zoom levels” as recited in claim 13, the Examiner states Marman does “not
disclose expressly” this limitation. We note, however, Marman suggests the
profile has a record of actual magnifications, because Marman teaches
speculative processing that involves determining which regions require a
more detailed view, including sub-sampling images/frames through
magnification. See Marman || 65—66, 70, 72, cited in Final Act. 3^4. These
8
Appeal 2017-004616
Application 13/781,240
teachings at least imply the described sub-sampling comprises an actual
record of magnifications at given zoom levels, at least temporarily, to
generate the above-discussed profile and to select the correct regions of
interest (e.g., Rols) for obtaining a closer range view. See id.
Additionally, Ahiska HI 6 suggests the “profile contains a record of
actual magnification at given zoom levels” in claim 13, especially those
based on zoom commands that physically change optics of a PTZ camera.
Ahiska ’776 teaches comparing images between a master digital camera and
a slave camera having a mechanical lens to match output images to a Rol for
calibration purposes. Ahiska ’776 119, cited in Ans. 5. This suggests
recording information related to images, including actual magnifications at
given zoom levels, prior to comparison. See Ahiska ’776 119.
Ahiska HI6 further teaches calibrating a slave camera to aim at the
same object as a master camera. Id. Tflf 42, 44, 55. This calibration may
include scenarios where the field of view of a master camera goes beyond 25
degrees. Id. In these situations, the slave camera can be pre-positioned to
the master camera’s position, its zoom level can be set at 30 degrees, and the
zoom level can be repositioned until it reaches 25 degrees. See id.
Adjusting the slave camera to each of the discussed positions suggests to one
skilled in the art recording a zoom level at least temporarily. See id.
Ahiska HI6 further relates these fields of view to magnification. Id. ^ 7.
These teachings in Ahiska HI6 thus further suggest to one of ordinary skill
in the art obtaining actual magnifications at given zoom levels (e.g.,
obtaining recorded magnifications beyond 25 degrees) in order to position
the camera properly. See id. 7, 44, 55, 79; see also Ans. 5 (discussing
zoom levels as numerical levels between 25 and 30). Thus, when combined
9
Appeal 2017-004616
Application 13/781,240
with Marman, the combination yields no more than a zoom and
magnification profile comprising a record of actual magnifications at given
zoom levels.
Appellants assert that, when a PTZ camera zooms mechanically
changing its lens optics, “the corresponding magnification or the resulting
image maybe unknown.” App. Br. 13 (citing Spec. 197). We stress,
however, that the disclosure indicates the magnification may be, but is not
necessarily, unknown. Spec. 197. Appellants further contend a zoom level
is distinct from magnification. Reply Br. 6 and App. Br. 13 (both citing
Spec., Fig. 25). Yet, this figure is “an exemplary measured zoom profile
2500 for an exemplary profile” and does not describe the profile is
necessarily like that shown in the disclosure’s Figure 25. Spec. 197. As
such, Appellants have not sufficiently rebutted the findings and conclusions
in the record that the “zoom and magnification profile” as taught collectively
by Marman and Ahiska ’776 contains “a record of actual magnifications at
given zoom levels.”
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error
in the rejection of (1) independent representative claim 13, (2) independent
claims 16 and 19 and (3) dependent claims 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 32, 35, and
38, not separately argued.
Claims 33, 36, and 39
Claims 33,36, and 39 depend from different independent claims but
are similarly in scope. App. Br. 28—29 (Claims App’x). These claims are
argued as a group. Id. at 14—15. We select claim 33 as representative. See
37 C.F.R. §41.37(c)(l)(iv).
10
Appeal 2017-004616
Application 13/781,240
Claim 33 recites “the calibrating the PTZ camera using the zoom and
magnification profile comprises correlating physical camera settings with
digital image properties.” Appellants contend Ahiska ’776 does not teach
the recited type of calibrating but rather teaches digitally matching a view
produced by a digital master camera with a view produced by a PTZ slave
camera. App. Br. 14. We are not persuaded by this argument given that
claim 13, from which claim 33 depends, and claim 33 generally recite
“calibrating the PTZ camera using the zoom and magnification profile” and
do not exclude view comparisons. Moreover, Ahiska ’776 teaches the
synchronization described in paragraph 19, which involves comparing
images, uses “calibration procedures” and thus suggests the technique
involves “calibrating the PTZ camera” as broadly as recited. See
Ahiska ’7761 19.
Appellants further assert the cited passages in Ahiska ’776 are
unrelated to “correlating physical camera settings with digital image
properties” as recited. Id. at 14—15 (discussing Ahiska ’776 H 44, 69, 72,
133). We are not persuaded. When Ahiska ’776 teaches “the two images
are matched or registered,” this further suggests to one skilled in the art that
image information of the slave camera (e.g., physical image settings,
including position information, such as a position feedback signal) are
matched (e.g., compared) with image information of the master camera (e.g.,
digital image properties). See Ahiska ’776 H 69, 73, cited in Final Act. 6.
This process also involves registering the images, which can be a component
of a calibration procedure. See id. 1119, 69, cited in Final Act. 6 and Ans.
6.
11
Appeal 2017-004616
Application 13/781,240
Additionally, Appellants do not discuss cited paragraphs 65, 66, and
73 (Ans. 6) of Ahiska ’776 in the Reply Brief. See generally Reply Br. As
such, these findings related to teaching correlating physical camera settings
with digital image properties are undisputed in the record. Even so, we note
that Ahiska ’776 teaches PTZ controls can be sent from the master camera
(e.g., digital image properties) to the slave camera to achieve an initial
approximate match between the wide-angle video camera and the slave PTZ
camera. Ahiska ’776173. This further suggests correlating digital image
properties from the master camera to the physical camera settings of the
slave camera (see id.), and as discussed above, the matching image process,
when combined with Marman, uses calibrating procedures that involve the
PTZ camera and the zoom and magnification profile. We refer above for
details.
Accordingly, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the
rejection of representative dependent claim 33 and claims 36 and 39 not
separately argued.
THE REMAINING OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION
Claims 31, 34, and 37 depend from different independent claims but
are similarly in scope. App. Br. 27—28 (Claims App’x). These claims are
argued as a group. Id. at 15—17. We select claim 31 as representative. See
37C.F.R. §41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appellants argue Ahiska ’477 is directed to correcting distortion and
has nothing to do with calibrating a PTZ camera using a zoom and
magnification profile and a PTZ camera’s base focal length. App. Br.
16—17. We are not persuaded.
12
Appeal 2017-004616
Application 13/781,240
Claim 33 recites “the calibrating the PTZ camera using the zoom and
magnification profile comprises calibrating the PTZ camera using the zoom
and magnification profile and a base focal length of the PTZ camera.” App.
Br. 27 (Claims App’x). There is nothing in this claim that excludes reducing
or eliminating distortion to correct an image from being a part of calibrating
a PTZ camera as broadly as recited. See Ahiska 'All H 29, 31. Also,
Appellants provide insufficient evidence (see App. Br. 16—17) that this
teaching cannot be combined with other teachings previously discussed
related to Marman or Ahiska ’776 when calibrating a PTZ camera for image
tracking and camera control purposes (see Final Act. 8; see also Ans. 7).
Regarding whether the focal lengths discussed in Ahiska ’477 address
the recited “base focal length,” Appellants argue this term “is a known term
of art meaning ‘the focal length of the PTZ camera when it is totally zoomed
out,’” and Ahiska ’477 fails to consider the claimed base focal length. App.
Br. 17. This argument is unavailing.
First, the Specification does not define this phrase but rather states
“[a] PTZ camera’s base focal length may refer to the focal length of the PTZ
camera when it is totally zoomed out.” Spec. 1 88 (emphasis added). As
such, this phrase may be understood by ordinarily skilled artisans to refer to
the focal length of the PTZ camera when it is totally zoomed out but is not
limited to this understanding. See id. Second, to the extent this phrase is
limited to that discussed in the Specification, Ahiska ’477 teaches the optical
system has a zoom lens with variable focal lengths and suggests one of the
variable focal lengths includes when the zoom lens is totally zoomed out.
See Ahiska ’477 131. As such, Ahiska ’477 teaching of generating tables
for the variable focal lengths of a zoom lens and interpolating missing
13
Appeal 2017-004616
Application 13/781,240
entries, when combined with Marman’s calibrating procedures, at least
suggests calibrating a PTZ camera can additionally be based on a focal
length that includes when the PTZ camera’s zoom lens is totally zoomed out
(e.g., a base focal length) as recited.
For the above reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in
the rejection of representative dependent claim 31, and claims 34 and 37 not
separately argued.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 13—21 and 31—39 under
§103.
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
14