Ex Parte MartinDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 11, 201813768210 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 11, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/768,210 02/15/2013 103122 7590 12/13/2018 HoustonHogle LLP Joseph Houston, HoustonHogle LLP 1666 Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 12 Lexington, MA 02420 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Walter A. Martin 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 0270.0021US1/R-SN-00196US 1153 EXAMINER KHALID, OMER ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2422 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/13/2018 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@houstonllp.com grant.houston@houstonllp.com eleahy@tycoint.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte WALTER A. MAR TIN Appeal2018-003210 Application 13/768,210 1 Technology Center 2400 Before ERIC B. CHEN, SHARON PENICK, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a non-final rejection of claims 23-38, which are all of the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. Technology The application relates to adjusting the focus of security cameras. Spec. Abstract. In particular, the application relates to an "autofocus routine ... that provides feedback to the installer" that "enables the installer to manually adjust the focus until the security camera is in focus." Id. ,r 7. 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Sensormatic Electronics, LLC. App. Br. 2. Appeal2018-003210 Application 13/7 68,210 Illustrative Claim Independent claim 23 is illustrative and reproduced below with the limitations at issue emphasized: 23. A method for installing a security camera, the method compnsmg: initiating and executing an autofocus routine running on a controller of the security camera; the autofocus routine analyzing an image captured by imager chip of the security camera and determining a degree to which the image is out of focus; and a feedback mechanism providing feedback corresponding to the degree to which the image is out of focus for an installer enabling the installer to manually adjust a lens of the security camera via focusing mechanism based on the feedback. Rejections Claims 23-26, 28-32, and 34--38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as obvious over the combination of Roskowski (US 2010/0220202 Al; Sept. 2, 2010) and Voss et al. (US 7,248,301 B2; July 24, 2007). Non- Final Act. 2. Claims 27, 33, and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as obvious over the combination of Roskowski, Voss, and Foote et al. (US 7,015,954 Bl; Mar. 21, 2006). Non-Final Act. 10. Claims 23 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph "based on the indefinite scope of the term 'degree."' Ans. 12-13. ISSUES 1. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Roskowski and Voss teaches or suggests "determining a degree to which the image is 2 Appeal2018-003210 Application 13/7 68,210 out of focus" and "providing feedback corresponding to the degree to which the image is out of focus," as recited in claim 23? 2. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Roskowski and Voss teaches or suggests "a graphical user interface tool that allows an operator to designate a portion of the image from the security camera as an area of interest," as recited in claim 3 8? 3. Did the Examiner err in concluding that the term "degree" renders claims 23 and 30 indefinite? ANALYSIS Obviousness A) Claims 23-26, 28-32, 34, 35, and 37 Independent claim 23 recites "determining a degree to which the image is out of focus" and "providing feedback corresponding to the degree to which the image is out of focus." Independent claim 30 recites commensurate limitations. Appellant argues that "although Roskowski teaches the installer being cued to adjust the image capture device until the focus is within a certain range of the best focus, there is no teaching ... that the indicator provides a feedback that corresponds to the degree to which the image is out of focus." App. Br. 7. Appellant similarly argues the combination of Roskowski and Voss fails to teach "a degree to which the image is out of focus." Id. at 9. We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments. The Examiner is correct that Roskowski teaches "to determine a current focus is within 5% of the best seen focus" (i-f 59) and "a human installer can perceive an indication of the degree of quality during the adjustment of the image capture device" 3 Appeal2018-003210 Application 13/7 68,210 (i1i166-702). Ans. 13. For example, Roskowski discloses "cueing an installer" using any of (A) "an audio tone with frequency associated with the relative quality of focus"; (B) "a sequence of audio tones with repetition associated with relative quality of focus"; (C) "blinking at least one indicator at a rate of speed associated with the relative quality of focus"; and (D) "adjusting degree of illumination of an indicator at level relative to the quality of focus." Roskowski ,r,r 27-37. All of these examples provide feedback corresponding to the determined degree to which the image is out of focus, as evidenced by the Specification disclosing nearly identical examples of "a light source that flashes at a frequency based on the degree to which a field of view is out of focus" and "a speaker that plays a tone for a length of time based on the degree to which a field of view is out of focus." Spec. ,r 9. Appellant also argues "there is no motivation to combine the teaching of Roskowski with Voss." App. Br. 7. We note, however, that for claim 23, the only limitation that the Examiner identified Voss as teaching ("the autofocus routine analyzing an image captured by imager chip of the security camera and determining a degree to which the image is out of focus") was also identified as being disclosed by Roskowski. Non-Final Act. 3. Thus, the Examiner's obviousness rejection for claim 23 does not require Voss. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection under § 103 of independent claims 23 and 30, and their dependent claims 24--26, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34, 35, 2 The Examiner cites paragraph 66 of Roskowski, but the Examiner's quotation is from paragraph 70, which is the end of a sentence that begins in paragraph 66. 4 Appeal2018-003210 Application 13/7 68,210 and 37, which Appellant argues are patentable for similar reasons. See App. Br. 10; 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). B) Claims 27, 33, and 36 Appellant argues "there is no showing that Foote teaches the features ... that are missing in Roskowski and Voss." App. Br. 12. For the reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments against Roskowski and Voss. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 27, 33, and 36. C) Claim 38 Dependent claim 3 8 further recites "a graphical user interface tool that allows an operator to designate a portion of the image from the security camera as an area of interest." Appellant argues that although Voss teaches showing to the user discrete portions having the highest levels of focus, Voss does not teach or suggest allowing a user to designate a portion of the image as an area of interest. App. Br. 11. The Examiner responds: "Both prior arts teach camera focusing. The area to be focused is the area of interest." Ans. 16 ( emphasis omitted). We agree with Appellant, however, that the ability to focus says nothing about allowing an operator to designate what portion of the image to focus on. For example, the system might automatically choose what to focus on without any input from the operator. Thus, the Examiner has not sufficiently addressed Appellant's argument. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 38. 5 Appeal2018-003210 Application 13/7 68,210 Indefiniteness In the Answer, the Examiner newly rejects claims 23 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph "based on the indefinite scope of the term 'degree."' Ans. 12-13. According to the Examiner, "[a] 'degree' is mentioned [in the Specification] but there is no range given nor a bases of ... what 'feedback ... corresponds to the degree to which the image is out of focus."' Id. at 12. We are not persuaded that the word "degree" renders claims 23 and 30 indefinite. "Merely claiming broadly does not render a claim insolubly ambiguous, nor does it prevent the public from understanding the scope of the patent." Ultimax Cement Mfg. Corp. v. CTS Cement Mfg. Corp., 587 F.3d 1339, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Here, such breadth may well be relevant to anticipation or obviousness, but the Examiner has not shown it would have prevented a person of ordinary skill in the art from having understood the claimed "degree to which the image is out of focus." Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 23 and 30 under§ 112, second paragraph. DECISION For the reasons above, we affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 23-37 under§ 103, but we reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claim 38 under§ 103. We also reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 23 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. No time for taking subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(f). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation