Ex Parte Martin

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 11, 2018

13768210 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 11, 2018)

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