Ex Parte Thiruvengada et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 26, 2016

13152968 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/152,968 92689 7590 HONEYWELL/SLW Patent Services 115 Tabor Road P.O. Box 377 06/03/2011 04/28/2016 MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Hari Thiruvengada 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. H0026873-2.218985 8004 EXAMINER EDWARDS, TYLERB ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2486 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/28/2016 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): patentservices-us@honeywell.com uspto@slwip.com SLW@blackhillsip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HARI THIRUVENGADA, PAUL DERBY, TOM PLOCHER, and HENRY CHEN Appeal2014-006717 Application 13/152,968 Technology Center 2400 Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, CATHERINE SHIANG, and MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judges. COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. Invention The invention on appeal relates to "a system and method to control surveillance cameras ... for thumbnail-based camera control." (Spec. i-fl). Appeal2014-006717 Application 13/152,968 Representative Claim 1. A system comprising: a video sensing device; a computer processor coupled to the video sensing device; and a display unit coupled to the computer processor; wherein the system is configured to: display a field of view of the video sensing device as a thumbnail on a main display of an area; [L 1] receive input from a user, wherein the input received from the user is received via one or more of a pan icon, a zoom icon, and a tilt icon; automatically calculate a change in one or more of a pan, a tilt, and a zoom of the video sensing device as a function of the input; alter one or more of the pan, the tilt, and the zoom of the video sensing device as a function of the calculations; and display a new field of view of the video sensing device in the thumbnail as a function of the alteration of the pan, tilt, and zoom of the video sensing device. (Bracketed matter and emphasis added regarding the contested limitation, labeled as "L 1 "). Rejections A. Claims 1-3, 5, 6, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) as anticipated by Kawai et al. (US 2002/0067412 Al; published June 6, 2002) ("Kawai"). 2 Appeal2014-006717 Application 13/152,968 B. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§103(a) as being obvious over the combined teachings and suggestions of Kawai. C. Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being obvious over the combined teachings and suggestions of Kawai, and Amini et al. (US 6,698,021 Bl; published February 24, 2004). D. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being obvious over the combined teachings and suggestions of Kawai, Amini, and McCormack (U.S. Publication No. 2007/0115355 Al, published May 24, 2007). E. Claims 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§103(a) as being obvious over the combined teachings and suggestions of Kawai, and Chosak et al. (US 2007 /0052803 Al; published l'vfarch 8, 2007). Grouping of Claims Based on Appellants' arguments, we decide the appeal of claims 1-3 and 16-20, rejected under anticipation rejection A, on the basis of representative claim 1. We address separately argued claims 5 and 6, also rejected underÂ§ 102 rejection A, infra. We address the remaining claims rejected underÂ§ 103 rejections B-E, infra. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). 3 Appeal2014-006717 Application 13/152,968 ANALYSIS Rejection A of claims 1-3 and 16--20 under 35 U.S. C. Â§ 102(b) Issue: Under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b ), did the Examiner err by finding Kawai expressly or inherently discloses contested limitation L 1: "receive input from a user, wherein the input received from the user is received via one or more of a pan icon, a zoom icon, and a tilt icon," within the meaning of claim 1? (Emphasis added). We have considered all of Appellants' arguments and any evidence presented. We disagree with Appellants' arguments, and we adopt as our own: ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken, and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth in the Answer in response to Appellants' arguments. (Ans. 13-14). However, we highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis in our analysis below. Appellants contend Kawai fails to describe "a pan icon, a zoom icon, or a tilt icon" because "Kawai only relate[s] to a camera icon." Appellants further contend that Kawai' s "camera control window 46 is a text entry box, [therefore] it is not a pan icon, a tilt icon, or a zoom icon." (App. Br. 7-8). The Examiner disagrees. (Ans. 13-14). In construing the claim term "icon" according to its broadest reasonable interpretation, the Examiner consults a "definition of an icon in the field of computing as found in the Oxford Dictionary" which defines an icon as: "'A symbol or graphic representation on a screen of a program, option, or window, especially one of several for selection."' (Ans. 13). The Examiner further notes, "Appellant does not specifically specify that the icons are 'graphical' icons, leaving a 4 Appeal2014-006717 Application 13/152,968 broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims open to symbols that are not necessarily graphical." (Ans. 14). Appellants do not argue that any definition, or express disclaimer, in the original Specification limits the scope the contested claim terms "a pan icon, a zoom icon, or a tilt icon;" (Claim 1). We note the scope of the claims on appeal, at a minimum, at least covers the corresponding supporting embodiment(s) described in the Specification. We emphasize, however, that under a broad but reasonable interpretation (or the more narrow construction applied by the federal courts), the scope of the claims is not limited to the preferred embodiments described in the Specification: "[A ]lthough the specification often describes very specific embodiments of the invention, we have repeatedly warned against confining the claims to those embodiments ... [C]laims may embrace 'different subject matter than is illustrated in the specific embodiments in the specification."' Phillips v. A WH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en bane) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Here, Appellants' Specification describes exemplary, non-limiting embodiments of the contested claimed icons: "[t]he [pan, tilt, and zoom] icons 105, 110, and 115 can include any means to receive input from a user .... " (emphasis added). The Specification further provides an open-ended list of examples: "such as a slide bar, an arrow, an increase button, a decrease button, or any other type of widget." (Spec. i-f 15, Figure 2, emphasis added). Turning to the Kawai reference, we find the text entry fields relied on by the Examiner (Ans. 2-3), as depicted within "camera control window 46" of Figure 14, are means that receive input from a user, corresponding to the 5 Appeal2014-006717 Application 13/152,968 , .. â€¢-t -t â€¢ â€¢ .. .. , -. r"I â€¢ r- , â€¢ /.-r -1 ,..,_ 1 ro , .. , , -t suppon aescrmea m Appeuams, ~pec1ncauon ~ 11 l) J , ror me contestea "icons" recited in limitation L 1 (Claim 1 ). See Figure 14, "Camera Control Window 46" of Kawai, as depicted below: Depicted above: "Camera Control Window 46" see Kawai i-fi-f 114--116 However, as emphasized above, the scope of the claims is not limited to the preferred embodiments described in the Specification. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323.2 Thus, the scope of the claimed contested "icons" is broader than the exemplary embodiments described in Appellants' Specification. (See Spec. 2-3, i-f 15). Therefore, on this record, Appellants 1 See e.g., Kawai (i-fl5, "any other type of widget"). 2 This court has repeatedly "cautioned against limiting the claimed invention to preferred embodiments or specific examples in the specification." Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1346-47 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). Even in cases where the specification describes only a single embodiment, the claims are not necessarily limited to that embodiment. Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm 't Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (It is not enough that the only embodiment, or all of the embodiments, contain a particular limitation to limit a claim to that particular limitation.). 6 Appeal2014-006717 Application 13/152,968 have not persuaded us the Examiner's claim interpretation is overly broad, unreasonable, or inconsistent with Appellants' Specification. (See Ans. 13- 14). Given the aforementioned claim interpretation and evidence (Kawai, Fig 14, i-fi-f 114--116), Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred in finding Kawai discloses contested limitation L 1: "receive input from a user, wherein the input received from the user is received via one or more of a pan icon, a zoom icon, and a tilt icon," within the meaning of claim 1. (Emphasis added). Accordingly, we sustain anticipation rejection A of representative claim 1. Claims 2, 3, and 16-20 (also rejected under rejection A, but not argued separately), fall with claim 1. See Grouping of Claims, supra. Rejection A of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) Dependent claim 5 recites: "The system of claim 1, configured to change a characteristic of the pan icon when a pan limit of the video sensing device is reached, change a characteristic of the tilt icon when a tilt limit of the video sensing device is reached, and change a characteristic of the zoom icon when a zoom limit of the video sensing device is reached." Referring to Kawai (i-fi-f 137, 143), Appellants contend: "[s]ince Kawai does not disclose a pan icon, a tilt icon, or a zoom icon, Kawai cannot disclose a change in a characteristic of any such icons when a limit of the video sensing device is reached, as is recited in claim 5" (App. Br. 8-9, emphasis added). However, Appellants' argument is grounded on an erroneous premise - that Kawai does not disclose a pan icon, a tilt icon, or a zoom icon. (Id.). 7 Appeal2014-006717 Application 13/152,968 We found this argument unpersuasive for the reasons discussed above regarding claim 1. Therefore, by a preponderance of the evidence, and for the reasons discussed above regarding claim 1, Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred. Accordingly, we sustain anticipation rejection A of dependent claim 5. Rejection A of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) Dependent claim 6 recites: "The system of claim 1, wherein one or more of the pan icon, the tilt icon, and the zoom icon are configured such that a user can alter an increment of a change in the pan, the tilt, and the zoom of the video sensing device that is implemented by input via the pan icon, the tilt icon, and the zoom icon." Referring again to Kawai (i-f 115), Appellants restate: "Kawai simply does not disclose a pan icon, a tilt icon, or a zoom icon." (App. Br. 9, emphasis added). Again, we find Appellants' argument is grounded on an erroneous premise - that Kawai does not disclose a pan icon, a tilt icon, or a zoom icon. (id.). We found this argument unpersuasive for the reasons discussed above regarding claim 1. However, Appellants further contend: "Kawai does not disclose that a user can 'alter an increment of a change in the pan, tilt, and zoom' via a pan icon, tilt icon, or zoom icon." (App. Br. 9). Regarding Appellants' second contention, we find paragraphs 116- 120 of Kawai further explain paragraph 115, particularly changing the pan, tilt, and zoom: [O 116] In this embodiment, four functions, i.e., panning, tilting, zooming, and focusing can be controlled for each camera 10. In this embodiment, the following three modes are provided. That is, [0117] Mode #1: change pan angle and focal point 8 Appeal2014-006717 Application 13/152,968 [0118] ivfode #2: change zoom ratio [O 119] Mode #3: change tilt angle [0120] As will be described in detail later, when the camera icon of the selected camera is double-clicked, the above-mentioned three modes are cyclically selected. Given this evidence, and for the same reasons previously discussed regarding claim 1, Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred. Accordingly, we sustain anticipation rejection A of dependent claim 6. Rejections B-E of claims 4 and 7-15 under Â§103(a) Appellants advance no arguments for claims 4 and 7-15, which are rejected underÂ§ 103 rejections B-E. Arguments not made are considered waived. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). 3 Therefore, we sustain rejections B-E of dependent claims 4 and 7-15. Reply Brief To the extent Appellants advance new arguments in the Reply Brief not in response to a shift in the Examiner's position in the Answer, we note arguments raised in a Reply Brief which were not raised in the Appeal Brief or are not responsive to arguments raised in the Examiner's Answer will not be considered except for good cause. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.41(b)(2). 3 See Hyatt v. Dudas, 551F.3d1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ("When the appellant fails to contest a ground of rejection to the Board, ... the Board may treat any argument with respect to that ground of rejection as waived.") 9 Appeal2014-006717 Application 13/152,968 Conclusion For at least the aforementioned reasons, on this record, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred. We find a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner's finding of anticipation regarding the claims rejected under rejection A. Appellants advance no arguments for claims 4 and 7-15, which are rejected underÂ§ 103 rejections B-E. Arguments not made are considered waived. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-20. No time for taking any action connected with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.50(Â±). AFFIRMED 10