Ex Parte Thiruvengada et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 7, 2016

13152817 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 7, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/152,817 92689 7590 HONEYWELL/SLW Patent Services 115 Tabor Road P.O. Box 377 06/03/2011 04/11/2016 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- l.218984 7695 EXAMINER PATEL, SANJIV D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2697 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/11/2016 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 Appeal2014-005587 Application 13/152,817 1 Technology Center 2600 Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CARLL. SILVERMAN, and STACY B. MARGOLIES, Administrative Patent Judges. MARGOLIES, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This appeal arises under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Honeywell International Inc. App. Br. 2. Appeal2014-005587 Application 13/152,817 SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION The invention is generally directed to a system that displays the area of ground covered by a camera's field of view (i.e., footprint), receives input from a user altering the footprint, changes the pan, tilt, and/or zoom of the camera as a function of the alteration, and displays the changed field of view. See Abstract, Spec. i-fi-18 and 10. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below: 1. A system comprising: a video sensing device, wherein the video sensing device comprises a field of view; a computer processor coupled to the video sensmg device; and a display unit coupled to the computer processor; wherein the system is configured to: display on the display unit a footprint of the video sensing device in an environment, wherein the footprint comprises the field of view of the video sensing device; receive input from a user that directly alters the footprint of the video sensing device; 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 direct alteration of the footprint; 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 field of view of the video sensing device on the display unit as a function of the altered pan, tilt, and zoom of the video sensing device. 2 Appeal2014-005587 Application 13/152,817 REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1, 5-12, and 14--20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable in view of Metzger (US 7,839,926 Bl; filed Apr. 21, 2005) and Saunders (US 2011/0063325 Al; filed Sept. 16, 2009). Final Act. 3-11. The Examiner rejected claims 2 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable in view of Metzger, Saunders, and Dumm (US 2009/0073388 Al; published Mar. 19, 2009). Final Act. 11-13. The Examiner rejected claims 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable in view of Metzger, Saunders, and Beutter (US 2003/0076410 Al; published Apr. 24, 2003). Final Act. 13-14. ISSUES The pivotal issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that Metzger teaches or suggests a system configured to "display on the display unit a footprint of the video sensing device in an environment, wherein the footprint comprises the field of view of the video sensing device" and alter the pan, the tilt, or the zoom of the video sensing device as a function of input received "from a user that directly alters the footprint of the video sensing device," as recited in independent claim 1 and similarly recited in independent claims 14 and 18. 3 Appeal2014-005587 Application 13/152,817 ANALYSIS Appellants argue that the Examiner concedes that Metzger does not disclose a footprint that is a field of view of a sensing device (App. Br. 8), and, in any event, the crosshair disclosed in Metzger is not a footprint. Reply Br. 2-3. Appellants also argue that the overlay disclosed in Saunders is not the claimed footprint and that Saunders does not disclose that a user can alter the pan, tilt, or zoom of a video sensing device by altering the overlay. App. Br. 8. Appellants also assert that Metzger-which teaches control of a video sensing camera via altering a crosshair-and Saunders- which teaches permitting a user to center objects in the display via an overlay on the display unit---do not, in combination, teach or suggest controlling the pan, tilt, or zoom of a camera via manipulation of a footprint on the display unit. Id. The Examiner responds that Saunders and Metzger each disclose a footprint that is a field of view of a sensing device, and that Metzger teaches controlling the pan, tilt, or zoom of a camera via manipulation of a footprint on the display unit. Ans. 3-5. Specifically, the Examiner finds that Appellants' specification defines footprint as the area of coverage on the ground caused by the field of view of the camera. Ans. 3. The Examiner finds that Saunders discloses, among other things, that the display of the handheld electronic device shows the field of view of the attached camera, and that a transparent graphic overlay allows the field of view to be seen on the display screen. Id. The Examiner also finds that Metzger discloses the claimed footprint because Figures 2 and 3D show the display of a field of view of a camera. Ans. 4. The Examiner further finds that Figures 3Dl- 4 Appeal2014-005587 Application 13/152,817 3D4 and the accompanying description in Metzger teach a user manipulating a footprint to control the pan, tilt, or zoom of a camera. Id. We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred. Claim 1 requires that the system be configured to "display on the display unit a footprint of the video sensing device in an environment, wherein the footprint comprises the field of view of the video sensing device" and "receive input from a user that directly alters the footprint of the video sensing device." We agree with the Examiner that Metzger teaches these limitations and the other limitations of the claim. See Ans. 2-5; Final Act. 2-7. Metzger discloses displaying a footprint that comprises the field of view of a camera on a display device. Metzger, Figs. 2 and 3Dl, 7: 13-16, 9:59---61. Metzger also discloses receiving input from a user that directly alters the footprint on the display screen in that the user can move a visual crosshair that changes the center of the footprint or can select a rectangular area of interest that changes the footprint to illustrate only that area of interest. Id. at Figs. 2 and 3Dl-3D4, 7:18-27, 9:57-10:50. Because we agree with the Examiner that Metzger teaches or suggests the features recited in independent claims 1, 14, and 18, we do reach the other issues raised by Appellants regarding Saunders. We also note that to the extent Appellants are arguing that the Examiner's reliance on Metzger for disclosing the claimed footprint improperly raises a new ground of rejection (see Reply Br. 2), that contention is a petitionable matter and not an appealable matter. See C.F .R. Â§ 41. 40( a). Appellants failed to timely file such a petition and therefore have waived any argument that the Examiner's analysis of Metzger in the Answer must be designated as a new ground of rejection. See id. 5 Appeal2014-005587 Application 13/152,817 For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent claims 1, 14, and 18, and dependent claims 2-13, 15-17, 19, and 20 that are not separately argued (see App. Br. 8-9). DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 6