MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 20, 2022

2021000605 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 20, 2022)

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. 16/150,398 10/03/2018 TAL GILOR PAT22739-US-PRI 7104 22917 7590 01/20/2022 MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. IP Law Docketing 500 W. Monroe 43rd Floor Chicago, IL 60661 EXAMINER TRAN, NHAN T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2697 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/20/2022 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): USAdocketing@motorolasolutions.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _______________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _______________ Ex parte TAL GILOR, GABI OFIR, ALEX RIVKIN, and YOTAM KESHET _______________ Appeal 2021-000605 Application 16/150,398 Technology Center 2600 _______________ Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1-16. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Throughout this Decision, we use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2020). Appellant identifies Motorola Solutions, Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2021-000605 Application 16/150,398 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention generally relates to the automatic activation of a camera, such as a wearable camera, based on a triggering event. Spec. ¶¶ 1, 6. In a disclosed embodiment, cameras that receive a network ID that matches a network ID known or stored in the camera will be activated and start recording video and/or audio. Spec. ¶¶ 9, 21. According to the Specification, “the network ID comprises a network name and/or a device name” and may “encompass things such as, but not limited to an access point name, an SSID [(i.e., an IEEE 802.11x Server Set ID)], a Bluetooth device name, . . . , etc.” Spec. ¶¶ 7-8. Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced with the disputed limitation emphasized in italics: 1. A camera comprising: a radio frequency (RF) transmitter; an RF receiver configured to receive a first network identification (ID) via an over-the-air RF transmission; logic circuitry configured to determine that the first network ID was received and matches a predetermined network ID; and an image sensor that is triggered to begin recording based only upon the RF receiver receiving the first network ID; wherein the first network ID comprises a name of a first network that uses radio waves to provide wireless high-speed internet and network connections. The Examiner’s Rejections 1. Claims 1, 5, 7, 9, and 13-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Takehara et al. (US 2005/0212909 A1; Appeal 2021-000605 Application 16/150,398 3 Sept. 29, 2005) (“Takehara”) and Lee et al. (US 2019/0281363 A1; Sept. 12, 2019) (“Lee”). Final Act. 2-4. 2. Claims 2-4, 6, and 10-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Takehara, Lee, and Nguyen et al. (US 2018/0103189 A1; Apr. 12, 2018) (“Nguyen”). Final Act. 5-7. 3. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Takehara, Lee, and Yamaguchi et al. (US 2016/0227173 A1; Aug. 4, 2016) (“Yamaguchi”). Final Act. 7-8. ANALYSIS2 In rejecting independent claim 1 (as well as independent claims 9 and 16), the Examiner relies on the combined teachings of Takehara and Lee. See Final Act. 2-4. The Examiner finds Takehara teaches most of claim 1, but relies on Lee to teach “a name of a first network that uses radio waves to provide wireless high-speed internet and network connections.” See Final Act. 2-3 (citing Takehara ¶¶ 38, 49, 94, Fig. 11; Lee ¶¶ 11, 114). Appellant asserts that Takehara and Lee teach away from being combined as proposed by the Examiner because one of ordinary skill in the art would be led away from using Lee’s SSID to trigger image acquisition in Takehara’s system. Appeal Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 2-3. More specifically, Appellant argues that Takehara teaches away from using a network address (such as Lee’s SSID) for triggering because in the disclosed embodiment of 2 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed August 27, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); the Reply Brief, filed October 30, 2020 (“Reply Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed October 27, 2020 (“Ans.”); and the Final Office Action, mailed August 17, 2020 (“Final Act.”), from which this Appeal is taken. Appeal 2021-000605 Application 16/150,398 4 Takehara, it would trigger multiple cameras simultaneously. Appeal Br. 9. Appellant asserts each camera in Takehara requires a unique address (i.e., trigger). Appeal Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 2. In addition, Appellant argues that Takehara’s camera identification (IDp) does not teach the claimed network ID, which comprises the name of a first network. Reply Br. 2-3. “A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” Ricoh Co., Ltd. v. Quanta Computer, Inc., 550 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citations omitted). “[T]he ‘mere disclosure of more than one alternative’ does not amount to teaching away from one of the alternatives where the reference does not ‘criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed.’” SightSound Techs., LLC v. Apple Inc., 809 F.3d 1307, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Contrary to Appellant’s assertions, we do not find that Takehara or Lee teaches away from the proposed combination. Specifically, Takehara does not criticize, discredit, or discourage the solution claimed. Rather, we note Takehara expressly contemplates a system wherein the camera- equipped portable terminal and the remote imaging sensing device communicate via a wireless public telecommunications network. Takehara ¶ 38; see also Takehara, Fig. 1. Thus, we find one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Lee’s express teaching of a first network name (i.e., a SSID) that uses radio waves to provide wireless high- speed network connections with Takehara’s system of remotely triggering a camera to begin recording, such as for embodiments wherein the remote Appeal 2021-000605 Application 16/150,398 5 imaging sensing device(s) and camera-equipped portable terminal(s) communicate via wireless telecommunication networks. See, e.g., Takehara ¶ 38, Fig. 20. Moreover, we do not read Takehara as limiting the camera identification information to including only device-specific information. Rather, Takehara teaches the identification information may comprise myriad information. See, e.g., Takehara ¶¶ 93-94 (generally describing the camera identification information to be sufficient to identify the camera device and may include other information including a zoom parameter and a position parameter) 106-107 (describing the identification information may include shooting direction and an angle of elevation). To the extent Appellant argues incorporating the SSID of Lee into Takehara would result in all of Takehara’s camera being activated simultaneously (see Appeal Br. 9-10), rather than allowing for individual activation, we disagree. As explained above, the camera identification information of Takehara may comprise various pieces of information (e.g., a name of a first network and a camera device identifier) that allow for individualized activation. This is consistent with Appellant’s claim language that recites “the first network ID comprises a name of a first network.” See claim 1 (emphasis added). In addition, the Examiner provides an example in which it may be desirable to activate the cameras simultaneously. See Ans. 10. For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1. For similar reasons, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 9 and 16, which recite commensurate limitations and Appeal 2021-000605 Application 16/150,398 6 were not argued separately. See Appeal Br. 5-10; see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). In addition, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2-8 and 10-15, which depend directly or indirectly from independent claims 1 and 9, respectively, and were not argued separately. See Appeal Br. 5-10; see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). CONCLUSION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 5, 7, 9, 13-16 103 Takehara, Lee 1, 5, 7, 9, 13-16 2-4, 6, 10- 12 103 Takehara, Lee, Nguyen 2-4, 6, 10- 12 8 103 Takehara, Lee, Yamaguchi 8 Overall Outcome 1-16 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)(1)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED