Leverage Information Systems, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 30, 2021

2020003314 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2021)

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.
15/721,647 09/29/2017 Raymond G. Leblond LEVE-1-0007 8570
25315 7590 09/30/2021
LOWE GRAHAM JONES, PLLC
701 FIFTH AVENUE
SUITE 3420
SEATTLE, WA 98104
EXAMINER
YANG, JAMES J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2683
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/30/2021 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-patent@lowegrahamjones.com
patentdocketing@lowegrahamjones.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RAYMOND G. LEBLOND
Appeal 2020-003314
Application 15/721,647
Technology Center 2600
Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER,
JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON, Administrative Patent Judges.
CHAGNON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3, 5–10, 16–23, and 27. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a).
Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Leverage Information
Systems, Inc. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-003314
Application 15/721,647

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a surveillance system for automatically
selecting and presenting surveillance information collected by one or more
cameras. Appeal Br.2 12. The system selects a camera to target an event
(e.g., alarm activation or particular weather conditions) based on whether the
event occurred within the range and viewable area of the camera. Id.; See
Spec. ¶ 142 (listing exemplary events).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A detection and response device for automatically
selecting and presenting surveillance information collected by
one or more capture devices comprising:
one or more transceivers configured to receive data
indicating that an event has occurred;
one or more storage devices configured to store, for each
of the one or more capture devices, an associated range and
viewable area, wherein the range is represented as a radius
around the capture device, and wherein the viewable area is
represented as at least one shape that defines an area that can be
seen by the capture device; and
a response system configured to:
select at least one of the one or more capture
devices to target the event based on whether the event
occurred within the range and viewable area of the one or

2 In this Decision, we refer to the Specification filed September 29, 2017
(“Spec.”); Final Office Action dated July 3, 2019 (“Final Act.”); Advisory
Action dated September 23, 2019 (“Advisory Act.”); Appeal Brief filed
December 25, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer dated January 28,
2020 (“Ans.”); and Appellant’s Reply Brief filed March 30, 2020 (“Reply
Br.”).
Appeal 2020-003314
Application 15/721,647

3
more capture devices, wherein the selected capture
device is a mobile camera that is carried by a vehicle; and
control the selected capture device to target the
event.
Appeal Br. 12.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Donovan et al.
(“Donovan”)
US 7,382,244 B1 June 3, 2008
Fufidio et al. (“Fufidio”) US 2002/0067259 A1 June 6, 2002
Nakazawa et al.
(“Nakazawa”)
US 2004/0189816 A1 Sept. 30, 2004
Ogawa US 2006/0256195 A1 Nov. 16, 2006

REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1–3, 5–7, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Ogawa, Donovan, and Nakazawa.
II. Claims 8–10, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, and 27 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa and Nakazawa.
III. Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Ogawa, Nakazawa, and Fufidio.
OPINION
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
Appellant identifies, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential)
(cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
Appeal 2020-003314
Application 15/721,647

4
(“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify
the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”)). After considering the
argued claims in light of each of Appellant’s arguments, we are not
persuaded Appellant has identified reversible error in the appealed rejections
as to claims 1–3, 5–8, 10, 16–18, 20–23, and 27. We are persuaded
Appellant has identified reversible error in the appealed rejections as to
claims 9 and 19.
Independent Claims 1, 8, and 16
Appellant argues these claims together. Appeal Br. 5–9. We discuss
claim 1 as illustrative. The Examiner relies primarily on Ogawa in rejecting
the independent claims, and Appellant’s arguments are focused on the
disclosure and teachings thereof. Final Act. 3–13; Appeal Br. 5–9.
Ogawa teaches:
[A] monitoring system 10 according an embodiment of the
invention. The monitoring system 10 is a system having a
plurality of areas-under-monitoring 100 (100a, 100b) to be
monitored such as homes, offices, factories, transport facilities,
amusement parks and the like, a network 160 such as WAN and
LAN and one or a plurality of monitoring apparatuses 150 (150a,
150b) and monitoring the area-under-monitoring 100 by
displaying images captured by image capturing apparatuses 120
set within each area-under-monitoring 100 on the monitoring
apparatus 150.
Ogawa ¶ 40; Fig. 1.
In Ogawa, “[e]ach one of the areas-under-monitoring 100a and 100b
has a set of a plurality of sensors 110 (110a and 110b), one or a plurality of
image capturing apparatuses 120 (120a, 120b), a control apparatus 130 and a
communication network 135.” Ogawa ¶ 41. “[T]he image capturing
Appeal 2020-003314
Application 15/721,647

5
apparatus 120a is set in correspondence to the plurality of sensors 110a and
the image capturing apparatus 120b is set in correspondence to the plurality
of sensors [110b].” Ogawa ¶ 43.
Ogawa further teaches:
The control apparatus 130 is connected with the plurality
of sensors 110 and the communication network 135 and controls
an image capturing direction, magnification and the like of the
image capturing apparatuses 120a and 120b based on the
environmental values representing the external environment
received from the respective one of the plurality of sensors 110.
Still more, when it is required to monitor from the monitoring
apparatus 150 because the environment value received from the
plurality of sensors 110 represents an abnormal value for
example, the control apparatus 130 informs the monitoring
apparatus 150 of the image capturing apparatus 120 to be
monitored by the monitoring apparatus 150.
Ogawa ¶ 44.
According to Ogawa,
[W]hen the control apparatus 130 receives an environment value
representing that an abnormality has occurred in the external
environment from at least one of the plurality of sensors 110, the
control apparatus 130 directs the image capturing apparatus 120
in the image capturing direction so that it can capture an image
of such abnormality and informs the monitoring apparatus 150
that the image capturing apparatus 120 should be monitored.
Ogawa ¶ 48.
Further still, in Ogawa,
The sensor correlated information storage section 230
stores sensor identifying information for identifying each one of
the plurality of sensors 110 by correlating with image capturing
apparatus identifying information for identifying the image
capturing apparatus 120 that should transmit captured images to
the monitoring apparatus 150 among the plurality of image
Appeal 2020-003314
Application 15/721,647

6
capturing apparatuses 120 when the environment value inputted
from the sensor 110 meets with a preset condition.
Ogawa ¶ 52.
The Examiner’s Findings
We discuss the Examiner’s findings as they are relevant to
Appellant’s arguments presented in the Appeal Brief and the Reply Brief.
Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d at 1075.
The Examiner finds that “[e]ach control apparatus 130 of each
area-under monitoring 100 receives data from sensors 110 that may indicate
an abnormality, i.e., an event.” Final Act. 3 (citing Ogawa ¶ 48).
The Examiner finds that “[t]he control apparatus 130 informs the
monitoring apparatus 150 of which capturing apparatus 120 to be monitored
based on environmental values received from one of the plurality of sensors
110.” Final Act. 4 (citing Ogawa ¶ 44).
The Examiner finds that “[t]he range is established as the level of
magnification allowed by the image capturing apparatus 120.” Final Act. 3
(citing Ogawa ¶ 121); see also Ans. 4 (finding that “[o]ne of ordinary skill in
the art would recognize that a radius represents the maximum distance from
the location of the camera to its subject with which the camera can
capture.”).
The Examiner determines also that “[t]he range and viewable area is
related to the area associated with and covering each of a set of sensors, e.g.,
110a, 110b.” Final Act. 4 (citing Ogawa, Fig. 1). “Thus, [according to the
Examiner,] when selecting a camera based on sensor data, the system
effectively selects the camera based on its range and viewable area.” Ans. 5.
Appeal 2020-003314
Application 15/721,647

7
According to the Examiner, “[t]he range and viewable area of the
capturing apparatus 120 is interpreted as synonymous because the range at
which a capturing apparatus 120 can capture an image or video includes the
area with which the capturing apparatus 120 can view.” Final Act. 4; see
also Ans. 4 (finding that “the range is also representative of its viewable
area, because the camera cannot capture video or images beyond its range”).
The Examiner determines that “the viewable area of a particular camera
includes everything within range of the camera that is captured by the
camera.” Ans. 4–5.
The Examiner also finds that “[t]he control apparatus 130 may change
the direction and/or magnification of the capturing apparatus 120, which is
equivalent to targeting the event.” Final Act. 4 (citing Ogawa ¶ 46).
The Examiner admits that “Ogawa does not specifically teach” that
“the range is represented as a radius around the capture device, and the
viewable area is represented as at least one shape,” but determines that
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for
the image capturing apparatus 120 to have a range, defined by
the sensors assigned to the image capturing apparatus 120, and a
viewable area represented as one shape. As per the range, the
image capturing apparatus 120 is limited in range to the
magnification set by the magnification control section 850 in
response to a message received by the image capturing apparatus
120 (see Ogawa, Paragraph [0121]). As per the viewable area,
the image capturing apparatus 120 may turn horizontally and/or
vertically, and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would
recognize that the viewable area would be a 3-dimensional
sphere or close to a 3-dimensional sphere (see Ogawa, Paragraph
[0120]).
Final Act. 4–5.
Appeal 2020-003314
Application 15/721,647

8
In the Advisory Action, the Examiner reiterates:
The system of Ogawa teaches the ability to control the
magnification of the capture devices, i.e. the range, based on
stored values (see Ogawa, Paragraph [0121]) and additionally
selecting the image capturing apparatus based on information
stored regarding a corresponding sensor (see Ogawa, Paragraph
[0052] and Fig. 1), which represents a viewable area of the image
capturing apparatus because the area that is captured by the
image capturing apparatus is related to the location of the sensor
that senses a condition. The claims, in light of the specification,
do not explicitly or inherently define a range or viewable area
away from this interpretation.
Advisory Act. 1.
Appellant’s Arguments and Our Analysis
Appellant argues that the cited references “do not teach or suggest
selecting a camera (claim 1) or capture device (claims 8 and 16) based on
range and viewable area of the device, where the range is a radius about the
device and the viewable area is a shape.” Appeal Br. 5. Appellant also
argues that neither of these values — range and viewable area — are stored.
Appeal Br. 7; Reply Br. 2.
As to the claimed range, Appellant argues that
Ogawa’s level of magnification is not the same thing as
the claimed “range.” A range defines a region between an upper
and lower limit, whereas a level is merely a magnitude. Ogawa
stores a magnification magnitude (e.g., “zoom value”) but it
nowhere discusses storing a range of magnification magnitudes
or zoom values.
Appeal Br. 7 (citing Ogawa ¶ 121).
This argument is not persuasive. We agree with the Examiner that
“[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a radius represents the
Appeal 2020-003314
Application 15/721,647

9
maximum distance from the location of the camera to its subject with which
the camera can capture.” Ans. 4. Appellant seems to recognize this as well.
See Appeal Br. 7 (“While it may be true that Ogawa’s capturing apparatus
120 has a range in the sense that it cannot view objects at every
distance . . .”).
Further, Appellant’s Specification describes “the camera range may
[be] a radius around the camera.” Spec. ¶ 209, Fig. 14A (exemplary camera
range 1404). “In one or more embodiments, the distance may be based on
the camera’s capabilities, such as its focusing or zooming capabilities.”
Spec. ¶ 209. This is consistent with the magnification described in Ogawa,
where the magnification may be set “by changing a value of zoom for
example.” Ogawa ¶ 121.
With respect to storing the range, Appellant admits that “Ogawa does
describe storing information about magnification levels.” Ans. 2. To the
extent Ogawa does not expressly teach storing the value of the magnification
level corresponding to the “radius [that] represents the maximum distance
from the location of the camera to its subject with which the camera can
capture” (Ans. 4), one of skill in the art would understand that the system of
Ogawa would need this information in order to prevent selecting an
unavailable value for the zoom when setting the magnification. See Final
Act. 4 (recognizing that “the image capturing apparatus 120 is limited in
range to the magnification set”); Advisory Act. 1 (finding that “Ogawa
teaches the ability to control the magnification of the capture devices, i.e. the
range, based on stored values”).
Appeal 2020-003314
Application 15/721,647

10
As to the claimed viewable area, Appellant argues
Ogawa’s image capturing apparatus 120 are situated so that they
can view areas about one or more sensors 110. The fact of this
co-location relationship between capturing apparatus 120 and
sensors 110 appears to be stored by Ogawa (para. 51), but this is
not the same thing as storing an area that is “represented as an
area that can be seen by the capturing device,” as required by the
claims. An “area” is some extent of space, which is not the same
thing as Ogawa’s co-location of capturing apparatus 120 and
sensor 110. Indeed, it would be possible for Ogawa’s capturing
apparatus to see an area far beyond the location of a given sensor.
Thus, Ogawa’s co-location of capturing apparatus and sensor
cannot be equated with the claimed viewable area “represented
as an area that can be seen by the capturing device.”
Appeal Br. 7–8.
This argument is not persuasive. Appellant’s Specification describes
the viewable area [14083] comprises a shape that maps out or
defines the area or areas that can be seen by the camera 812.
Though shown as a contiguous shape, it is noted that viewable
area 1408 may comprise one or more separate areas. In
addition, the viewable area 1408 may have a variety of shapes
including various lines, angles, and curves.
Spec. ¶ 211 (emphases added), Fig. 14B. We, thus, construe viewable area,
consistent with the Specification, as an area or areas that can be seen by the
camera/capture device. See Spec. ¶ 211.
Claim 1 further recites that “the viewable area is represented as at
least one shape that defines an area that can be seen by the capture device.”
Appeal Br. 12 (emphasis added). We are not persuaded that this portion of
the claim is limited to the embodiment described with respect to Figure 14B,

3 The Specification includes 1404 here, but we assume this to be a clerical
error.
Appeal 2020-003314
Application 15/721,647

11
in which the shape of the viewable area is defined by various obstructions
912 within the range of the camera.4 Spec. ¶¶ 210–211; see Appeal Br. 2.
This determination is supported by the further recitation of the claim that
“the selected capture device is a mobile camera that is carried by a vehicle.”
Appeal Br. 12. The obstructions within a range of a mobile camera carried
by a vehicle would change as the vehicle moves. Thus, the “at least one
shape that defines an area,” as claimed, must be construed more broadly than
merely as being defined by the obstructions within the range of the camera.
We agree with the Examiner’s determination that, in Ogawa, the
“viewable area is related to the area associated with and covering each of a
set of sensors.” Final Act. 4. This area can be seen by the corresponding
camera. Ogawa ¶¶ 41, 43. The area associated with and covering each of a
set of sensors also is “some extent of space” and has a shape. Appeal Br. 7
(arguing that “[a]n ‘area’ is some extent of space”); Spec. ¶ 211 (discussing
that the shape may be continuous or not, and may include various lines,
angles, and curves).
Appellant further contends that “just because a given camera in
Ogawa may naturally have a viewable area, this does not mean that Ogawa
stores a viewable area that is ‘represented as at least one shape that defines
an area that can be seen by the capture device,’ as required by the claim.”

4 The claims neither require nor preclude an instance where the range and
the viewable area are coextensive. For example, if there are no obstructions
within the range of the camera, the stored viewable area may be the entirety
of the camera’s range. Alternatively, even if the view is not blocked by
obstructions, restrictions to the stored-viewable-area settings may result in a
stored viewable area having a shape that is smaller than the entirety of the
camera’s range.
Appeal 2020-003314
Application 15/721,647

12
Ans. 2. In Ogawa, however, a sensor correlated information storage section
230 stores information correlating the plurality of sensors 110 with the
plurality of image capturing apparatuses 120. Ogawa ¶ 52. Thus, Ogawa
stores information defining a “viewable area [that] is represented as at least
one shape that defines an area that can be seen by the capture device,” as
claimed.
Appellant also contends that “Ogawa does not teach or suggest ‘select
at least one of the one or more cameras to target the event based on
whether the event occurred within the range and viewable area of the
one or more cameras,’ as recited by claim 8, or similarly by claims 1 and
16.” Appeal Br. 8. In particular, according to Appellant,
Ogawa does not describe the claimed selection process at least
because Ogawa never targets an event based on “whether the
event occurred within the range and viewable area” of a camera.
Instead, Ogawa selects an image capturing apparatus based on
the stored relationship between sensor and image capturing
apparatus. As discussed above, Ogawa’s stored relationship is
not the same thing as the claimed “area,” and thus Ogawa cannot
possibly teach or suggest camera selection based on area. And
even if Ogawa’s stored relationship can be mapped to the
claimed “area,” Ogawa still does not select a camera based on
“range.” To select a camera based on the claimed “range,”
Ogawa would have to select a camera based on magnification
level, which it does not do.
Appeal Br. 8.
According to Appellant, “if the cited references do not store ranges
and viewable areas as claimed, they cannot possibly select cameras or
capture devices based upon that information.” Ans. 3.
As discussed above, we determine that Ogawa does store information
defining a range (i.e., magnification levels) and a viewable area (i.e., the
Appeal 2020-003314
Application 15/721,647

13
correlation of the camera with the set of sensors, which, in turn, defines an
area having a shape).
Contrary to Appellant’s arguments, the claim does not recite selecting
a camera based on the range and the viewable area. Rather, the claim recites
selecting a camera “based on whether the event occurred within the range
and viewable area.” In Ogawa, the camera is selected based on the specific
sensor that detected the event. Ogawa ¶ 52. It would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art, based on the disclosure of Ogawa, that the
sensors correlated with a particular camera would be within the range and
viewable area of that camera. See Ans. 4 (“[O]ne of ordinary skill in the art
would not be motivated to select a camera that is located remotely from the
detected value, as the camera would not provide relevant images/video to the
detected environmental value.”).
We, therefore, are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s finding
that “when selecting a camera based on sensor data, the system effectively
selects the camera based on its range and viewable area.” Ans. 5.
Appellant also argues “[t]here is no need in Ogawa to use a radius
and/or shape to perform camera selection. Ogawa already uses a mechanism
for camera selection that is based on stored co-location relationships.”
Appeal Br. 9. According to Appellant, “Ogawa describes cameras that are
co-located with various sensors (e.g., smoke detectors). Information about
the co-location is used, when a particular sensor is activated, to activate the
corresponding camera. Ogawa essentially hard-wires relationships between
cameras and sensors.” Reply Br. 3.
Appellant contends that “[t]he Examiner’s modifications to Ogawa are
counter to its principle of operation, and would require substantial
Appeal 2020-003314
Application 15/721,647

14
reconstruction and design of Ogawa’s system.” Appeal Br. 9; see also id. at
8 (“Representing range as radius and viewable area as shape would be
redundant in the context of Ogawa.”); Reply Br. 4 (“Such modifications alter
the core principle of operation of Ogawa and would thus not be naturally
made by one of ordinary skill in the art.”).
As discussed above, we determine that Ogawa’s selection of a camera
based on sensor data teaches or suggests the claimed camera-selection
process. Therefore, no modification of Ogawa is necessary in order to meet
the claim language. Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us of error.
The Examiner relies on Donovan and Nakazawa as teaching a
“normalization engine configured to receive data indicating that an event
occurred” (claim 1) and the “selected capture device is a mobile camera that
is carried by a vehicle” (claims 1, 8, 16), respectively. Final Act. 5.
Appellant does not present arguments regarding the teachings of Donovan or
Nakazawa, or regarding the combination of references. See generally
Appeal Br.; Reply Br.
For the reasons discussed, we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner’s determinations that claim 1 is rendered obvious by Ogawa,
Donovan, and Nakazawa, and that claims 8 and 16 are rendered obvious by
Ogawa and Nakazawa. We, therefore, sustain the rejections of the
independent claims.
Dependent Claims 9 and 19
Dependent claim 9 further recites, inter alia,
select[ing] one of the one or more cameras to target the event
based on the camera range and the viewable area of each of the
one or more cameras, wherein the event is not within the
Appeal 2020-003314
Application 15/721,647

15
viewable area of the selected camera, wherein the event is within
the range of the selected camera.
Appeal Br. 14. Claim 19 includes similar limitations. Id. at 15.
The Examiner finds
The image capturing apparatus 120 may be turned and
magnification may be increased/decreased. Thus, one of
ordinary skill in the art would recognize that an image capturing
apparatus may not be within the viewable area of the event, but
may be turned and/or zoomed out such that the event is within
the viewable area.
Final Act. 10–11. In other words, the Examiner determines that “prior to
turning the cameras and modifying the camera magnification, the subject of
the cameras was not previously in the camera’s viewable area, otherwise the
cameras would not be moved or changed in any way.” Ans. 5.
Appellant argues
the Examiner mapped “viewable area” to Ogawa’s stored
relationship between a sensor and co-located image capture
apparatus. This means that when Ogawa selects an image
capture apparatus (due to a sensor signal), the event is by
definition within the “viewable area” of the apparatus. Ogawa
will never select an image capture apparatus where the event is
not within the viewable area of the apparatus, because there is no
stored co-location relationship between that apparatus and the
event sensor that detected the event.
Appeal Br. 10.
We agree with Appellant. As discussed above, in rejecting the
independent claims, the Examiner finds that, in Ogawa, the “viewable area is
related to the area associated with and covering each of a set of sensors.”
Final Act. 4. This stored viewable area is not only the area that the camera
is currently viewing, but the entire area associated with the sensors (i.e., that
the camera can view, even if not currently viewing). Thus, even when a
Appeal 2020-003314
Application 15/721,647

16
camera is not currently pointed at a particular one of the sensors, that sensor
is still within the stored viewable area of the camera.
The rejection of claims 9 and 19 is reversed.
Dependent Claim 23
Dependent claim 23 recites “storing a mapping between zoom levels
of a camera and viewable locations provided by the zoom levels; and using
the mapping to target the camera to provide a view of the event.” Appeal
Br. 16.
The Examiner finds
[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
for the magnification control section 850 to include a limit to the
magnification of the camera such that the magnification control
section 850 is capable of controlling the magnification of the
image capturing device when commanded to do so.
Final Act. 14–15.
Appellant argues that “[t]he Examiner’s proposed limit does not
qualify as the claimed mapping because it nowhere represents viewable
locations.” Appeal Br. 10–11.
The Examiner responds
The magnification control section 850 of Ogawa, in combination
with the camera section 800, controls the magnification of the
camera in order to capture a particular event, based on image
capturing direction information that represents the direction in
which the camera section 800 should capture images when the
event is detected (see Ogawa, Paragraph [0121]). Thus, at the
very least, the system is capable of determining where the event
has occurred, which direction to point the camera, and at what
magnification to set the camera to in order to capture images of
Appeal 2020-003314
Application 15/721,647

17
the event. Thus, adjusting the camera accordingly also targets
the camera to provide a view of the event.
Ans. 6.
We are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s position. Ogawa
selects a camera based on sensor information. As the Examiner notes, “[t]he
magnification control section 850 of Ogawa . . . controls the magnification
of the camera in order to capture a particular event” (Ans. 6), for example, at
a particular sensor 110. Ogawa ¶ 121. One of skill in the art would
understand the system of Ogawa stores a mapping between zoom levels (i.e.,
magnification) of a camera and viewable locations (i.e., sensors 110) in
order to be able to control the magnification to capture the event identified
by the sensor. The Examiner’s rejection of claim 23 is sustained.
Dependent Claims 2, 3, 5–7, 10, 17, 18, 20, 21, and 27
Appellant does not separately argue dependent claims 2, 3, 5–7, 10,
17, 18, 20, 21, and 27. See Appeal Br. 11. The rejections of these claims
are sustained.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–3, 5–8, 10, 16–18, 20–23, and
27 are affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 9 and 19 is reversed.
Appeal 2020-003314
Application 15/721,647

18
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5–7, 18 103 Ogawa, Donovan,
Nakazawa
1–3, 5–7, 18
8–10, 16,
17, 19, 20,
22, 23, 27
103 Ogawa, Nakazawa 8, 10, 16,
17, 20, 22,
23, 27
9, 19
21 103 Ogawa, Nakazawa,
Fufidio
21
Overall
Outcome
1–3, 5–8,
10, 16–18,
20–23, 27
9, 19

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED IN PART