Ex Parte Wharton

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 21, 2017

12974733 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 21, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 12/974,733 12/21/2010 Stephen Wharton SKY-091213 4220 22876 7590 08/23/2017 FACTOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, LTD. 1327 W. WASHINGTON BLVD. SUITE 5G/H CHICAGO, IL 60607 EXAMINER KUHFUSS, ZACHARY L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3617 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/23/2017 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): jmerritt@factoriplg.com ysolis @factoriplg.com c schroeder @ factoriplg .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte STEPHEN WHARTON Appeal 2017-000081 Application 12/974,7331 Technology Center 3600 Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, JAMES R. HUGHES, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20, which are all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Cablecam LLC. Br. 3. Appeal 2017-000081 Application 12/974,733 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellant’s application relates to calibrating an aerial movement system that suspends a camera over a large expanse such as a football field or basketball court. Spec. 2-3. Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed subject matter and reads as follows: 1. An aerial movement system comprising: a camera to be suspended over an expanse; a plurality of reels disposed around the expanse, each reel including a support line being coupled to the camera, the plurality of reels and associated support lines being configured to move the camera along the expanse; a plurality of registration points wherein each reel from the plurality of reels is associated with a registration point; a computer in communication with each of the reels; a plurality of wireless position transceivers, each wireless position transceiver in communication with the computer, wherein at least a first and second wireless position transceiver is disposed proximate a first and a second registration point and a third wireless position transceiver is disposed proximate the camera, wherein the computer and the plurality of wireless position transceivers cooperate with the computer so as to calibrate the movement of the camera to enable calibrated movement of the camera along the entire expanse. The Examiner’s Rejections Claims 1-4, 6-9, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Brown (US 4,710,819; Dec. 1, 1987), O’Connor et al. (US 2005/0242052 Al; Nov. 3, 2005), and Bosscher et al. (US 2009/0066100 Al; Mar. 12, 2009). Final Act. 3-9. 2 Appeal 2017-000081 Application 12/974,733 Claims 5 and 10-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Brown, O’Connor, Bosscher, and Tachikawa (US 6,160,371; Dec. 12, 2000). Final Act. 9. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s contentions. Except as noted below, 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 set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following additional points. Appellant argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as unpatentable over Brown, Bosscher, and O’Connor because O’Connor is not analogous art to the claimed invention. Br. 16-19. Specifically, Appellant argues O’Connor is related to movable gantry cranes for moving shipping containers, which is a different field of endeavor than the claimed invention. Id. at 16-17. Appellant argues O’Connor is also not reasonably pertinent to the problem solved by the claimed invention. Id. at 17-19. Specifically, Appellant argues the primary focuses of O’Connor are to improve the accuracy required in driving a gantry crane and accommodating and controlling the sway motion of the frame. Id. at 17 (citing Gantry || 5, 7, 8). Appellant argues O’Connor has no need for calibrated movement because objects are picked up from a first static location and dropped off at a second static location after being moved along a fixed path of movement. Id. at 18. 3 Appeal 2017-000081 Application 12/974,733 Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error. “Two separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor's endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The Examiner relies on the “reasonably pertinent” test in finding O’Connor is analogous art. Ans. 3. Appellant’s Specification indicates that there is a need for a calibration system that allows for precise data in monitoring the location and movement of a camera in an aerial movement system. Spec. 113-11. We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 3—4) that O’Connor’s method of determining the position of a grappler that is suspended between fixed registration points of a gantry crane is reasonably pertinent to this problem (see O’Connor, Abstract, Fig. 9, 55-61). Appellant also argues the Examiner erred because O’Connor does not teach “calibrating] the movement of the camera to enable calibrated movement of the camera along the entire expanse,” as recited in claim 1. Br. 20-22. In particular, Appellant argues O’Connor merely teaches calibrating the steering of a gantry crane, not using GPS to calibrate the grappler. Id. at 21. Appellant also argues Bosscher teaches calibrating a robot system after the rigid frame is anchored, but does not explain how this calibration is accomplished. Id. at 21-22. Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner finds, and we agree, O’Connor teaches processing unit 901 determines the position of the grappler. Ans. 4 (citing O’Connor | 55). O’Connor further teaches a touch screen interface coupled to the position processing unit 901. 4 Appeal 2017-000081 Application 12/974,733 Id. (citing O’Connor | 56). This touch screen interface allows for user calibration. Id. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that an ordinarily skilled artisan would reasonably interpret these teachings to indicate that the touch screen is used to calibrate the steering and operation of the grappler. Id. Appellant’s argument that O’Connor and Bosscher fail to teach how the calibration is accomplished is unpersuasive because the claims do not require a particular method of calibration, reciting only that the computer “calibrate^] the movement of the camera to enable calibrated movement of the camera along the entire expanse.” For these reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1. We, therefore, sustain the rejection of claim 1. We also sustain the rejection of independent claims 11, 19, and 20, for which Appellant has not offered separate argument (Br. 22), and dependent claims 2-10 and 12-18 (Br. 22-23). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (Arguments not made are waived). DECISION We affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-20. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 5