Ex Parte Henninger et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 26, 2012

11295090 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 26, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte PAUL E. HENNINGER III and MICHAEL D. BOLOTINE
____________________

Appeal 2010-010605
Application 11/295,090
Technology Center 2600
____________________

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

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-010605
Application 11/295,090

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

A. INVENTION
Appellants’ invention is directed to a modular surveillance camera
system having a camera head, system controller, and a communication
module electrically and mechanically interconnected; wherein, each camera
head or communication modules has an identification and the system
controller operates the system dependent upon this identification (Abstract).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A modular surveillance camera kit, comprising:

a group of camera heads each having a respective set of
performance characteristics;

a group of system controllers each having a respective set
of performance characteristics; and

a group of communications modules each having a
respective set of performance characteristics, each of said
communications modules being configured to be coupled to a
system interface;

wherein a surveillance camera may be assembled in a
selected one of a plurality of possible combinations by selecting
one of said group of camera heads, one of said group of system
controllers and one of said group of communications modules
such that said selected system controller electrically and
Appeal 2010-010605
Application 11/295,090

3
mechanically interconnects said selected camera head and said
selected communications module, each said system controller
being configured to:

ascertain an identification of at least one of said selected
camera head and said selected communications module that is
assembled in a same said surveillance camera as
said system controller; and

operate said surveillance camera dependent upon the
identification.

C. REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Shimizu US Patent 5,778,008 Jul. 7, 1998
Paolantonio US Pat. App. Pub. No.: 2005/0094994 A1 May 5, 2005
Tanaka US Patent 7,123,126 B2 Oct. 17, 2006
(Filed Mar. 25, 2003)
Konica Minolta, DiMAGE A2, Instruction Manual, Konica Minolta Camera,
Inc. (2003) . (Konica Manual)

Claims 1-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Paolantonio in view of Tanaka.
Claims 8-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Paolantonio in view of Tanaka and Shimizu.
Claims 14-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Paolantonio in view of Tanaka and the Konica Manual.

II. ISSUES
The dispositive issues before us are whether the Examiner has erred in
determining that:
Appeal 2010-010605
Application 11/295,090

4
1. the combination of Paolantonio and Tanaka teaches or would have
suggested “each said system controller being configured to . . . operate said
surveillance camera dependent upon the identification” (claim 1, emphasis
added); and
2. the combination of Paolantonio, Tanaka, and Shimizu teaches or
would have suggested “each said system controller being configured to . . .
determine, based upon the identifications, whether said selected camera
head, said selected communications module and said system controller that
are assembled in said same surveillance camera are operationally
compatible with one another; and notify a user if said selected camera head,
said selected communications module and said system controller that are
assembled in said same surveillance camera are not operationally
compatible with one another” (claim 8, emphasis added).

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Paolantonio
1. Paolantonio discloses an apparatus and method for controlling a
stepper motor in a video surveillance camera dome based upon specific
camera action commands; wherein, the video surveillance camera includes a
chassis 6 inserted within camera housing 8 (Fig. 1; Abstract; ¶¶ [0027],
[0029], and [0030]). The chassis couples to a pan and tilt video camera
assembly 4 in a fixed orientation (id.).
Appeal 2010-010605
Application 11/295,090

5
2. Prior art servicing of installed cameras required disassembly of
the camera chassis from the camera enclosure and other camera components
to repair and/or replace (reinstall) components (¶¶ [0006] and [0007]).
3. Positioning members of chassis 6 have a guide channel 23 that
receives and engages corresponding alignment flanges 24 positioned on the
interior of housing 8 to guide chassis 6 into housing 8 (¶ [0029]).
4. Chassis 6 includes printed circuit board (PCB) 26 that interacts
with the pan and tilt camera assembly 4 and other electrical systems (¶
[0030]). PCB 26 includes a microprocessor 102 and a communication
interface 100; wherein, communications interface 100 automatically detects
what data communications protocol is being transmitted to the camera dome
and automatically configures the dome to operate according to the protocol
received (Fig. 8; ¶ [0037]).
5. Chassis 6 receives and engages a heater assembly 48 (Figs. 5
and 7; ¶¶ [0033] and [0034]).
Tanaka
6. Tanaka discloses surveillance cameras 70 that are assigned with
camera identification information (CID1, CID2 , CID3); wherein, surveillance
camera 70 records a video of the corresponding surveillance area and
transmits the video to the central monitoring device 100 which controls the
direction and zoom of the surveillance camera 70 based upon a camera
control signal (col. 5, ll. 54-63).
Shimizu
7. Shimizu discloses a method of fault diagnosis that detects a
trouble or abnormality of an apparatus by using a microcomputer and
reporting the result of the fault diagnosis to a user (col. 1, ll. 10-23).
Appeal 2010-010605
Application 11/295,090

6
Konica Manual
8. Konica Manual discloses a camera that is equipped with an
automatic battery-condition indicator that detects and displays the status of
the battery on a data panel and monitor, notifying the user when it is time to
replace or recharge the battery (paras. 1 and 4).

IV. ANALYSIS
Claims 1-7
As to claim 1, Appellants contend that “[t]he video monitors and
video recording devices [of Paolantonio] … have nothing whatsoever to do
with the internal components of the video camera,” (emphasis omitted) such
as “‘a group of camera heads,’” “‘a group of system controllers,’” and “a
group of communications modules’” (App. Br. 6-7). Appellants argue that
“[j]ust because a diagnostic connector 116 enables diagnostic connection to
the hardware and software resident on PCB 26 in Paolantonio does not
[necessarily] mean that that identifying information is associated [with] a
particular component of the camera, such as a camera head and/or
communications module” (App. Br. 9). Appellants then assert that the
“Examiner has [ ] improperly relied on the inherency doctrine to make such
a finding” (id.) (Emphasis omitted).
However, the Examiner finds that Paolantonio “teach[es] a
[surveillance] camera which has different camera components which
assemble/disassemble into separate components (camera assembly . . .
chassis . . . which includes [a] communication module . . . and a thermal
module” (Ans. 28). Although the Examiner agrees with Appellants’
arguments regarding inherency, “the [E]xaminer believes the limitation ‘the
Appeal 2010-010605
Application 11/295,090

7
surveillance camera may be assembled in a plurality of possible
combinations by selecting from the group of camera components’ is too
broad and maintains the rejection over Paolantonio because during
installation/service/repair, for example, camera components are selected
from an inventory/group of camera components” (Ans. 28-29).
We give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir.
1997). Claim 1 does not place any limitation on what “a surveillance
camera” means, includes, or represents other than it “may be assembled
inside a camera housing . . . selecting one of said group of camera heads, one
of said group of system controllers and one of said group of communications
modules such that said selected system controller electrically and
mechanically interconnects said selected camera head and said selected
communications module” (claim 1, emphasis added).
We, however, find that “wherein a surveillance camera may be
assembled” merely represents intended use of the group of camera heads,
system controllers, and communication modules. That is, such “may be
assembled . . . by selecting” language merely represents a statement of
intended use of the camera heads, system controllers, and communication
modules. An intended use will not limit the scope of the claim because it
merely defines a context in which the invention operates. Boehringer
Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345
(Fed. Cir. 2003).
Thus, we give “wherein a surveillance camera may be assembled
inside a camera housing in a selected one of a plurality of possible
combinations by selecting one of said group of camera heads, one of said
Appeal 2010-010605
Application 11/295,090

8
group of system controllers and one of said group of communications
modules such that said selected system controller electrically and
mechanically interconnects said selected camera head and said selected
communications module” its broadest reasonable interpretation as the
camera heads, system controllers, and communication modules are capable
of being selected and assembled to form a surveillance camera, as consistent
with the Specification and claim 1.
Further, claim 1 does not place any limitation on what “identification”
means, includes, or represents other than it relates to the selected module
and the surveillance camera’s operation depends upon it. The Specification
discloses that the system controller uses the identification associated with
each module to determine the type or version of each selected module
(Spec.¶ [0077]). Thus, we give “ascertain an identification” its broadest
reasonable interpretation as to acquire data related to the selected module, as
consistent with the Specification and claim 1.
Further, we find that “configured to” merely represents intended use
of the system controller. That is, such “configured to” language merely
represents a statement of intended use of the system controller. Thus, we
give “each said system controller being configured to: ascertain an
identification of at least one of said selected camera head and said selected
communications module that is assembled in a same said surveillance
camera as said system controller; and operate said surveillance camera
dependent upon the identification” its broadest reasonable interpretation as
the system controller is capable of acquiring data related to the selected
module such that operation of the surveillance camera is based upon this
data, as consistent with the Specification and claim 1.
Appeal 2010-010605
Application 11/295,090

9
Paolantonio discloses a video surveillance camera including a housing
having a chassis that couples to a pan and tilt video camera assembly (FF 1).
Installation and repairing/replacement of parts within the camera requires
assembly and disassembly of the same (FF 2). The chassis includes a PCB,
having a microprocessor and a communication interface, which interacts
with the camera assembly (FF 4). We find that video surveillance camera
comprises a camera head that electrically couples to the microprocessor and
the communication interface. That is, we find that during installation or
replacement of parts that Paolantonio’s camera assembly, microprocessor,
and communication interface are capable of being selected and assembled to
form a surveillance camera.
In addition, Tanaka discloses surveillance cameras that are assigned
with camera identification information and controlled by a central
monitoring device using a control signal (FF 6). We find that camera
identification information comprises data related to the camera module. We
also find that the central monitoring device controls Tanaka’s surveillance
camera based upon this data. In particular, we find that Tanaka’s
surveillance camera comprises a “system controller being configured to . . .
operate said surveillance camera dependent upon the identification” (claim
1).
In view of our claim construction above, we find that the combination
of Paolantonio and Tanaka at least suggests providing “each said system
controller being configured to . . . operate said surveillance camera
dependent upon the identification,” as specifically required by claim 1.
Accordingly, we find that Appellants have not shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Appeal 2010-010605
Application 11/295,090

10
Paolantonio in view of Tanaka. Further, Appellants present a similar
argument for claims 2, and 4-7 (depending from claim 1); therefore, claims
2-7 fall with claim 1.
Claim 3
Appellants contend that “[w]hile Paolantonio does disclose a heater
element,” “Paolantonio does not disclose or suggest providing ‘a group of
thermal modules’” (App. Br. 9). However, the Examiner finds that
Paolantonio discloses a “[t]hermal [h]eater [ ] coupled by [a] connector”
(Ans. 6).
For claim 3, similar to that noted supra, we find that “configured to”
merely represents intended use of the system controller. Thus, we give
“each said system controller being configured to: ascertain an identification
of said selected thermal module that is assembled in a same said surveillance
camera as said system controller; and operate said surveillance camera
dependent upon the thermal module identification” its broadest reasonable
interpretation as the system controller is capable of acquiring data related to
the selected module such that operation of the surveillance camera is based
upon this data, as consistent with the Specification and claim 3.
Paolantonio discloses that the chassis couples to receive and engage
with a heater assembly (FF 5). We find that Paolantonio’s heater assembly
is capable of coupling with other modules, such as the chassis having the
microprocessor and the communications interface. In particular, we find
that Paolantonio’s heater assembly includes a “thermal module” (claim 3).
In view of our claim construction above, we find that the combination
of Paolantonio and Tanaka at least suggests providing “each said system
controller being configured to . . . operate said surveillance camera
Appeal 2010-010605
Application 11/295,090

11
dependent upon the thermal module identification,” as specifically required
by claim 3.
Accordingly, we find that Appellants have not shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Paolantonio in view of Tanaka.
Claims 8-13
Appellants argue that claims 8-13 are patentable over the cited prior
art for the same reasons asserted with respect to claim 1 (App. Br. 13-19).
Appellants further contend that “Shimuzu also does not disclose or suggest
anything whatsoever to do with determining whether various components of
a camera are compatible, let alone determining, based upon the
identifications, whether said selected camera head, said selected
communications module and said system controller that are assembled in
said same surveillance camera are operationally compatible with one another
and notifying a user if said selected camera head, said selected
communications module and said system controller that are assembled in
said same surveillance camera are not operationally compatible with one
another” (App. Br. 15).
However, the Examiner finds that “Shimizu teaches such a
notification reporting to a user of a diagnostic analysis on a camera head and
connection with components which inherently analyzes for compatibility
[since, Shimizu discloses that] ( [a]bnormal operation reported to a user such
as cable disconnection or abnormal communication between a camera head
and a camera control unit” (Ans. 12). (Emphasis omitted.) The Examiner
finds that “Paolantonio [discloses that] during installation/service/repair, for
Appeal 2010-010605
Application 11/295,090

12
example, camera components are selected from an inventory/group of
camera components” (Ans. 28-29).
As noted supra, we find that the combination of Paolantonio and
Tanaka teaches all the features of the surveillance camera, including the
system controller being capable of acquiring data from selected modules.
Additionally, we give “each said system controller being configured
to: . . . determine, based upon the identifications, whether said selected
camera head, said selected communications module and said system
controller that are assembled in said same surveillance camera are
operationally compatible with one another; and notify a user” (claim 8,
emphasis added) its broadest reasonable interpretation as the system
controller is capable of acquiring data related to selected modules,
determining based upon this data whether the modules work together
functionally, and granting notice, as consistent with claim 8.
Shimizu discloses a method of fault diagnosis that detects trouble or
abnormality of an apparatus by using a microcomputer and reporting the
result of the fault diagnosis to a user (FF 7). We find that the detection of
trouble or abnormality includes the detection of whether the components of
the system work together functionally. We also find that the reporting of the
result includes the granting of notice to the user based upon these findings.
That is, we find that Shimizu’s method comprises “each said system
controller being configured to: . . . determine, based upon the identifications,
whether said selected camera head, said selected communications module
and said system controller that are assembled in said same surveillance
camera are operationally compatible with one another; and notify a user”
(claim 8).
Appeal 2010-010605
Application 11/295,090

13
We therefore affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8-13 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Paolantonio further in view of Tanaka and Shimizu.
Claims 9-13 (depending from claim 8) not argued separately, fall with
claim 8.
Claims 14-23
Appellants contend that although “[t]he Konica Manual teaches a
camera with an indication of a battery status,” it “does not disclose or
suggest ascertaining identifications of, collecting data from, or determining
whether a camera head module, a communications module, a thermal
module, and a system controller module should be replaced or notifying a
user if at least one of said camera head module, said communications
module, said thermal module, and said system controller module should be
replaced” (App. Br. 20).
However, the Examiner relies upon the Konica Manual to “teach[] a
camera with an indication of a battery status which is considered to be
identification of diagnostic information of an individual component” (Ans.
19).
As to claim 14, we give “each said system controller being configured
to: . . . determine whether at least one of said camera head module, said
communications module, said thermal module, and said system controller
module should be replaced with a like module, said determination being
based upon the identifications and upon said at least one of diagnostic data
and environmental data” (claim 14, emphasis added) its broadest reasonable
interpretation as the system controller is capable of determining whether a
module should be replaced based upon data, as consistent with claim 14.
Appeal 2010-010605
Application 11/295,090

14
Konica Manual discloses a camera having an automatic battery-
condition indicator that detects and displays the status of the battery on a
data panel that indicates to the user when it is time to replace or recharge the
battery (FF 8). We find that Konica Manual’s camera comprises a system
controller that is capable of determining whether a module (the battery)
should be replaced based upon data. That is, we find that Konica Manual’s
camera comprises a “system controller being configured to . . . determine
whether at least one of . . . module should be replaced with a like module,
said determination being based upon the identifications and upon said at
least one of diagnostic data and environmental data” (claim 14).
In view of our claim construction above, we find that the combination
of Paolantonio, Tanaka, and the Konica Manual at least suggests providing
“said system controller being configured to . . . determine whether at least
one of said camera head module, said communications module, said thermal
module, and said system controller module should be replaced with a like
module, said determination being based upon the identifications and upon
said at least one of diagnostic data and environmental data” (claim 14).
Accordingly, we find that Appellants have not shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Paolantonio in view of Tanaka and Konica Manual. Further, independent
claim 19 having similar claim language and claims 15-18 and 20-23
(depending from claims 14 and 19) which have not been argued separately,
fall with claim 14.

Appeal 2010-010605
Application 11/295,090

15
V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-23 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

Vsh