Ronald Pride

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 11, 2021

2020001942 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 11, 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. 15/246,814 08/25/2016 Ronald Pride pride.ronald.U01 1095 33376 7590 06/11/2021 KENNETH L. TOLAR 1055 St. Charles Avenue Suite 208 New Orleans, LA 70130 EXAMINER BRUMFIELD, SHANIKA M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2487 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/11/2021 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte RONALD PRIDE ____________ Appeal 2020-001942 Application 15/246,814 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JOHN A. EVANS, and JULIET MITCHELL DIRBA, Administrative Patent Judges. JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 15–34. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Ronald Pride. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-001942 Application 15/246,814 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s invention is a video content capturing and broadcasting system using mesh cameras positioned within a flooring inset. See Spec. ¶¶ 1, 23. The mesh cameras respond to motion data from movement of a player as they pass within the viewing area of the mesh cameras. See Spec. ¶ 30. Claim 15 is illustrative: 15. An integrated camera system comprising: a video camera received within an inset formed on an event surface on which a target is performing, said video camera capturing a video segment of the target while said target is performing on said event surface; a content server configured to process the video segment to create a video sequence; and an access server configured to transmit the video sequence to a content provider, wherein the content provider broadcasts the video sequence to an audience. THE REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 15–18, 20, 21, 23–26, 28–30, 33, and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Jabara (US 2013/0305297 A1; published Nov. 14, 2013) and Eineren (US 2015/0185592 A1; published July 2, 2015). Final Act. 18–27.2,3 2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection mailed March 29, 2019 (“Final Act.”); (2) the Appeal Brief filed August 30, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); and (3) the Examiner’s Answer mailed October 2, 2019 (“Ans.”). 3 We note that although the Examiner’s Final Office Action at page 18 lists claims 20–26 as rejected over Jabara and Eineren, the Final Office Action at page 27 nonetheless includes claim 22 as rejected over Jabara, Eineren, and Vitito. Therefore, we presume that claim 22 was not intended to be rejected Appeal 2020-001942 Application 15/246,814 3 The Examiner rejected claims 22 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Jabara, Eineren, and Vitito (US 2008/0197997 A1; published Aug. 21, 2008). Final Act. 27–28. The Examiner rejected claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Jabara, Eineren, and Oh (US 2013/0330515 A1; published Dec. 12, 2013). Final Act. 29. The Examiner rejected claims 31 and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Jabara, Eineren, and Cheng (US 2011/0158623 A1; published June 30, 2011). Final Act. 29–31. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER JABARA AND EINEREN Regarding independent claims 15 and 30, the Examiner finds that Jabara discloses an integrated camera system with (1) video cameras for capturing video of a target’s performance; (2) a content server to process the captured video into a video sequence; and (3) an access server to transmit the video sequence to a content provider for broadcast. Final Act. 18–19. Although the Examiner acknowledges that Jabara lacks the video cameras being received within an inset formed on an event surface on which the target performs, the Examiner cites Eineren as teaching this feature in concluding that the claim would have been obvious. Final Act. 19–20. Appellant argues that Eineren does not disclose a camera within an event surface inset. Appeal Br. 8–11. According to Appellant, not only is Jabara unconcerned with capturing images from below an event surface, over Jabara and Eineren, but rather Jabara, Eineren, and Vitito. Accordingly, we present the correct claim listing here for clarity, and treat the Examiner’s error as harmless. Appeal 2020-001942 Application 15/246,814 4 positioning a camera in a road surface is not analogous or suggestive of positioning a camera within an inset of an event surface as the term is defined in the Specification, namely a game court, playing field, stage, or similar surface. See id. Appellant emphasizes that because Eineren’s thermal imaging camera is not a video camera that captures images or light emanating from a moving target, but rather captures heat, ordinarily skilled artisans would not consider an opening or otherwise making the camera “visible.” Id. 11–12. Appellant argues various other recited limitations summarized below. ISSUES Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 15–18, 20, 21, 23–26, 28–30, 33, and 34 by finding that Jabara and Eineren collectively would have taught or suggested: (1) video cameras received within an inset formed on an event surface on which a target is performing as recited in claims 15 and 30? (2) the event surface includes an opening superimposed on the video camera as recited in claims 16 and 34? (3) the opening includes a transparent cover positioned within the opening as recited in claim 17? (4) the transparent cover being coplanar with the event surface as recited in claim 18? (5) the content server activates, deactivates, rotates, tilts, zooms, and focuses the video camera as recited in claim 21? Appeal 2020-001942 Application 15/246,814 5 (6) a director interface for instructing the content server to activate, deactivate, rotates, tilts, zooms, and focus the video camera as recited in claim 24? (7) a stepper motor for moving the video camera horizontally and vertically to track the target moving along the event surface as recited in claim 26? (8) the event surface is a floor as recited in claim 28? ANALYSIS Claims 15, 23, 25, 29, 30, and 33 We begin by noting that the Examiner’s reliance on Jabara’s reference to (1) a video camera capturing a video segment of a target while the target is performing; (2) a content server to process the video segment into a video sequence; and (3) an access server to transmit the video sequence to a content provider for broadcast to an audience is undisputed, as is the cited references’ combinability. See Final Act. 18–20. Rather, as noted above, this dispute turns solely on the Examiner’s reliance on Eineren for teaching the recited camera received within an inset formed on an event surface on which a target is performing. See Appeal Br. 8–11. Therefore, we confine our discussion to Eineren. On this record, we find no error in the Examiner’s reliance on Eineren’s camera module placed under a road surface for at least suggesting the claimed camera received within an inset formed on an event surface. See Final Act. 19–20 (citing Eineren ¶¶ 57–60). To the extent Appellant contends that Eineren’s camera positioned in a road surface is not the same as a camera received within an inset, we are unpersuaded. See Appeal Br. 9. Appeal 2020-001942 Application 15/246,814 6 Rather, we are persuaded by the Examiner’s reasoning that Eineren’s camera module, including a visual camera, positioned under a road surface features the camera within the road surface, to allow a target to be inspected from underneath. See Final Act. 19–20 (citing Eineren ¶¶ 57–60). Eineren’s camera module is configured to analyze a thermal signature and inspect a vehicle, including its undercarriage, where such a camera module is placed under a road surface, within a tunnel entrance, etc. See Eineren ¶ 60. Moreover, Eineren’s camera module includes one or more cameras, for example, a visible light camera and a thermal imaging camera. See Eineren ¶¶ 57–58. Therefore, we see no error in the Examiner’s findings that Eineren’s camera module, whose cameras include a visual camera, when positioned under a road surface to inspect a target vehicle visually from underneath, would have the camera module with the visual camera inset into the road surface at least in one implementation. See Final Act. 19–20. Appellant’s contention, then, that Eineren’s thermal imaging camera is not a video camera that captures images or light emanating from a moving target, but rather captures heat (Appeal Br. 11–12) is unavailing, for it ignores Eineren’s distinct visible light camera in paragraph 57. To be sure, it may be theoretically possible to position Eineren’s camera module entirely below the road itself such that it could inspect the vehicle visually from underneath through an opening in the road. In that scenario, the camera module would still be placed under a road surface consistent with Eineren’s paragraph 60, albeit under the road itself. See Eineren ¶ 60 (noting that the camera module may be placed under a road surface). Nevertheless, mounting the camera module within an inset in the road, but below its surface, would have been at least an obvious variation to Appeal 2020-001942 Application 15/246,814 7 achieve a similar end, namely inspecting vehicles visually as they travel over the camera. To the extent Appellant contends that such an arrangement would have been beyond the level of ordinarily skilled artisans given Eineren’s teachings, there is no persuasive evidence on this record to substantiate such a contention. We next determine whether Eineren’s road surface is equivalent to the claimed event surface. See Final Act. 19–20 (citing Eineren ¶¶ 57–60). Appellant contends that (1) the definition of event surface as provided in the Specification does not include a road surface, and (2) no extrinsic evidence was provided by the Examiner to support the proffered plain meaning set forth in the rejection. See Appeal Br. 9–11. First, to the extent Appellant contends that they have clearly and unambiguously defined the term “event surface” in the Specification, we disagree. Although Appellant refers to a description of “event surface” in the Specification’s paragraph 23, (Appeal Br. 9) that passage merely states, in pertinent part, that “[e]ach mesh camera is disparately imbedded within a floor of a game court, playing field, stage, or similar.” See Spec. ¶ 23 (emphasis added). Notably, this description fails to refer to an event surface explicitly let alone define the term clearly and unambiguously, unlike other terms in the Specification whose concrete definitions leave no doubt as to their meaning. See Spec. ¶ 60 (defining various terms explicitly). Although the description in the Specification’s paragraph 23 informs our understanding of at least some kinds of surfaces in which the claimed camera is embedded, it is not limiting. Nor will we import this description into the claims. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“[A]lthough the specification often describes very specific embodiments of the invention, we have repeatedly Appeal 2020-001942 Application 15/246,814 8 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.”) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Therefore, we construe the claimed “event surface” with its plain meaning. The term “event” is defined, in pertinent part, as “something that happens, especially something important” (Event, OXFORD AMERICAN DICTIONARY 296 (1980)), and “surface” is defined, in pertinent part, as “the outside of an object” (Surface, OXFORD AMERICAN DICTIONARY 925 (1980)). Given these definitions, we therefore construe “event surface” as the outside of an object where something happens. Under this construction, Eineren’s road surface is an event surface because Eineren’s camera module is configured to analyze and inspect a moving vehicle’s undercarriage during passage into another area, by being placed under the road surface. See Eineren ¶ 60. Accordingly, the vehicle’s moving and traveling into another area is an event—something that happens—and the road surface is a surface of that event. Appellant’s arguments are, therefore, unavailing and not commensurate with the scope of the claim. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 15 and 30, and claims 23, 25, 29 and 33 not argued separately with particularity.4 4 We leave to the Examiner to consider whether the active method steps in apparatus claim 15 reciting “said video camera capturing . . . ,” and in both apparatus claims 15 and 30 reciting “the content provider broadcasts . . .” render the claims indefinite under § 112(b) as hybrid apparatus/method claims. See IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, Appeal 2020-001942 Application 15/246,814 9 Claims 16 and 34 We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 16 reciting that the event surface includes an opening superimposed on the video camera to allow the camera to capture unobstructed video images of the target. On this record, we find no error in the Examiner’s reliance on Eineren’s camera module placed under a road surface for inspecting the undercarriage of a vehicle for at least suggesting the recited limitations. See Final Act. 20 (citing Eineren ¶¶ 57, 60). Appellant contends that because Eineren uses a thermal-imaging camera—not a video camera—an opening in the road surface of Eineren would not be required nor expected. See Appeal Br. 11. Appellant provides evidentiary Exhibits A and B to support the contention that an infrared camera does not require or expect an opening to function. See Appeal Br. 11–12. Leaving aside Exhibit B’s support for a camera module that includes both an infrared sensor and a visual camera,5 Eineren nonetheless includes a visible camera despite Appellant’s contention to the contrary. Rather, as discussed above, Eineren’s camera module includes one or more cameras, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see also Rembrandt Data Technologies, LP v. AOL, LLC, 641 F.3d 1331, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (data transmitting device held indefinite for reciting transmitting method step); Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 2173.05(p)(II) (9th ed. Rev. 10.2019, June 2020) (citing IPXL). 5 See Rob Carson, Thermal Imaging Camera Guide (2018) (Ex. B), at 2 (noting under the section “What Exactly is a Thermal Imaging Camera?” that “[w]hile all thermal imaging cameras have a infrared sensor to pick the infrared wavelengths, many also have a visual light lens that creates an image to superimpose over the infrared image, providing more context and detail to the infrared image.”) Appeal 2020-001942 Application 15/246,814 10 for example, a visible light camera and a thermal imaging camera. See Eineren ¶¶ 57–58. Under the Examiner’s proposed combination, ordinarily skilled artisans would understand that mounting Eineren’s camera module with its visible light camera within an inset in the road, but below its surface, to inspect vehicles visually as they travel over the camera would require an opening superimposed at least partially on the camera to allow an unobstructed line of sight from the camera to the vehicle. To the extent Appellant contends that such an arrangement would have been beyond the level of ordinarily skilled artisans given Eineren’s teachings, there is no persuasive evidence on this record to substantiate such a contention. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 16 and 34. Claims 17 and 20 We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 17 reciting that the opening includes a transparent cover positioned within the opening for protecting the camera from impact damage and debris while allowing the camera to capture unobstructed target images. On this record, we find no error in the Examiner’s reliance on Eineren’s camera module for at least suggesting the recited limitations. See Final Act. 21 (citing Eineren ¶¶ 168, 173; Figs. 10a–10c). We find unavailing Appellant’s contentions that portions of Eineren relied upon by the Examiner fail to disclose a cover positioned within an opening superimposed on an inset formed in a performance surface. See Appeal Br. 12–13. We agree with the Examiner’s reasoning that the Appeal 2020-001942 Application 15/246,814 11 relevant citations to Eineren set forth with respect to claim 15, regarding placing the camera module under a road surface, apply also to claim 17 regarding where the camera module cover is positioned, and as such, at least suggest that a cover, as part of the camera module, would likewise be placed in an inset on the road surface. See Ans. 5–6. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 17, and claim 20 not argued separately with particularity. Claim 18 We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 18 reciting that the transparent cover is coplanar with the event surface to maintain the event surface’s uniformity and not create an obstacle on that surface. On this record, we find no error in the Examiner’s reliance on Eineren’s camera module which includes a transparent cover, and its placement under a road surface for inspecting a vehicle as it passes for at least suggesting the claimed transparent cover coplanar with the event surface. See Final Act. 21–22 (citing Eineren ¶ 60). Appellant contends that it would not have been obvious for Eineren’s camera module cover to be coplanar with the road surface since vehicles regularly traverse protrusions in roadways. See Appeal Br. 13. The Examiner, however, finds that Eineren’s camera module cover protects the camera with plural configurations, and therefore, a coplanar positioning within the road surface would have been obvious. See Ans. 5–6. We see no error in the Examiner’s findings and conclusions in this regard despite Appellant’s arguments to the contrary. Leaving aside Appellant’s failure to substantiate the assertion that vehicles “routinely Appeal 2020-001942 Application 15/246,814 12 traverse protrusions in roadways” (Appeal Br. 13), we are unpersuaded by Appellant’s contentions even assuming, without deciding, that this is the case. Notably, Appellant’s argument is premised on the notion that a “performer on an event surface must have a smooth, cohesive surface to avoid accidents and injuries,” unlike vehicles that, according to Appellant, “routinely traverse protrusions in roadways.” See Appeal Br. 13. But Appellant’s contention ignores the fact that not only are vehicles “performers” on an event surface, namely a road surface, these vehicular “performances” can be purely for entertainment, such as a car race or other public vehicular exposition. So even assuming, without deciding, that some vehicles routinely traverse protrusions in roadways as Appellant asserts (see Appeal Br. 13)—an assertion that is unsubstantiated in any event—the same cannot be said for all vehicles, particularly those in high-speed races where any protrusion in the racetrack could, upon impact, cause the driver to lose control of the car. Therefore, these high-speed vehicular “performers,” like other performers to which Appellant refers (see Appeal Br. 13), must have a smooth, cohesive surface, namely a smooth racetrack, to avoid accidents and injuries. Therefore, at least in these scenarios, placing Eineren’s camera module under the road surface such that the transparent cover is coplanar with that surface as the Examiner proposes would have been at least an obvious variation to protect both the camera and the vehicle with a smooth transition between the road and cover surfaces, yet also maintain an unobstructed line of sight between the camera under the road surface and the vehicle traveling overhead due to the cover’s transparency. Appeal 2020-001942 Application 15/246,814 13 Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 18. Claim 21 We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21 reciting that the content server activates, deactivates, rotates, tilts, zooms, and focuses the video camera. On this record, we find no error in the Examiner’s reliance on Eineren’s camera module including one or more actuators for orienting the camera module in three-dimensional space according to signals received from one or more control circuits, to reject the claimed content server activates, deactivates, rotates, tilts, zooms, and focuses the camera. See Final Act. 23 (citing Eineren ¶ 58). Appellant contends that Eineren “vaguely” describes reorienting the various cameras, but fails to disclose all claimed features. See Appeal Br. 14. We find the Examiner’s reasoning that orienting a camera in three- dimensional space includes rotating, tilting, zooming, and focusing the camera, and that the control circuit signals activate and deactivate, persuasive. See Ans. 6. We note that orienting in three-dimensions as disclosed in Eineren’s paragraph 58, in addition to including three dimensional movement such as rotating, and tilting, would also include zooming where the camera is moved along a focal axis, bringing the camera closer and thus enlarging, an object in view, and would also change the focal point of the camera lens, and thus the camera’s focus. Accordingly, we find the Examiner’s reliance on the Eineren’s teachings to have sufficient rational Appeal 2020-001942 Application 15/246,814 14 underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness over the combination of Jabara and Eineren. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 21. Claim 24 We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 24 reciting a director interface for instructing the content server to activate, deactivate, rotate, tilt, zoom, and focus the video camera. On this record, we find no error in the Examiner’s reliance on Jabara’s video jockey and video server and Eineren’s camera module including one or more actuators for orienting the camera module in three-dimensional space according to signals received from one or more control circuits for at least suggesting the recited director interface. See Final Act. 24 (citing Jabara Fig. 14; ¶ 117, and referring to the “discussion above” that cites Eineren ¶ 58). Appellant contends that the cited portion of Jabara merely describes a controller for managing multiple video streams from various sources, but does not suggest a director interface for instructing a content server to activate, deactivate, rotate, tilt, zoom and focus a video camera. See Appeal Br. 15. Jabara’s video jockey, however, enables previewing and selecting video stream functionality to switch between different video feeds that determine what video streams the video server provides to user devices. See Jabara ¶ 117; Fig. 14. In the combination with Eineren’s camera module actuators given by the Examiner, in referring to the “discussion above” with respect to, among other things, claim 21 (see Final Act. 24), we find the Appeal 2020-001942 Application 15/246,814 15 features of claim 24 are at least suggested by these collective teachings and, therefore, would have been obvious. To the extent Appellant contends that Jabara’s video jockey would be incapable of performing the recited interface functions as the Examiner proposes, or that implementing these functions via Jabara’s video jockey is somehow beyond the level of ordinarily skilled artisans, there is no persuasive evidence on this record to substantiate such a contention. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 24. Claim 26 We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 26 reciting a stepper motor for moving the video camera horizontally and vertically to track the target moving alone the event surface. On this record, we find no error in the Examiner’s reliance on Eineren’s camera module including a motor for orienting the camera in three-dimensional space for surveillance for at least suggesting the claimed stepper motor. See Final Act. 25 (citing Eineren ¶ 58). Appellant’s contentions that Eineren “vaguely” describes reorienting the various cameras, but fails to disclose the stepper motor for moving a camera horizontally and vertically to track the target moving along the event surface, is unavailing. See Appeal Br. 16. Notably, Eineren discloses actuators such as servo motors, etc. See Eineren ¶ 58. Our emphasis on Eineren’s exemplary and non-limiting language underscores that other kinds of actuators are contemplated in paragraph 58—not just those listed. Given this exemplary and non-limiting disclosure, we see no reason why a stepper Appeal 2020-001942 Application 15/246,814 16 motor could not also be an actuator commensurate with those in paragraph 58, particularly given Eineren’s explicit reference to servo motors in that regard. To the extent Appellant contends otherwise, or that using a stepper motor in lieu of a servo motor would have somehow been beyond the level of ordinarily skilled artisans, there is no persuasive evidence on this record to substantiate such a contention. That Eineren’s motors orient the camera module in three-dimensional space (see Eineren ¶ 58), thus including movement along an x-axis (horizontally) and a y-axis (vertically), only further weighs in favor of the Examiner. Further, we agree with the Examiner’s reasoning that Eineren’s control circuits configured to operate actuation and surveillance aspects of the camera module at least suggest controlling actuation for the surveillance including tracking an object under surveillance. See Ans. 7. Accordingly, we find the Examiner’s reliance on the teachings of Eineren to have sufficient rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness over the combination of Jabara and Eineren. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 26. Claim 28 We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 28 reciting that the event surface is a floor. On this record, we find no error in the Examiner’s reliance on Eineren’s road surface for at least suggesting the floor-based event surface.6 6 We presume that the Examiner’s reference to a “performance surface” (Final Act. 26) was intended to refer to the recited “event surface” given the Appeal 2020-001942 Application 15/246,814 17 See Final Act. 26 (citing Eineren ¶ 60). To the extent Appellant contends that Eineren’s road surface is not a floor (see Appeal Br. 16–17), we disagree. Notably, Appellant’s Specification does not define the term “floor,” unlike other terms whose concrete definitions leave no doubt as to their meaning. See Spec. ¶ 60 (defining various terms explicitly). We, therefore, construe the term “floor” with its plain meaning, which includes “[t]he surface of a structure on which vehicles travel.” Floor, THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY 675 (2006). Because Eineren’s vehicle travels on the surface of a road structure consistent with this definition, Eineren’s road surface is a “floor” under the term’s broadest reasonable interpretation. Appellant’s arguments are, therefore, unavailing and not commensurate with the scope of the claim. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 28. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER JABARA, EINEREN, AND VITITO Regarding dependent claim 22, the Examiner acknowledges that Jabara lacks the video camera including an integrated sensor for deriving positional and proximity information of the target, and cites Vitito as teaching this feature in concluding that the claim would have been obvious. Final Act. 27–28. term’s usage and context, and treat the Examiner’s error in this regard as harmless. Appeal 2020-001942 Application 15/246,814 18 Appellant argues that Vitito neither discloses a camera with an integrated sensor, nor one in combination with a video camera positioned within an event-surface inset. Appeal Br. 17–18. Regarding dependent claim 27, the Examiner acknowledges that Jabara lacks the integrated sensor being either of an infrared sensor, laser sensor, visible light sensor, and a sound sensor, and cites Vitito as teaching this feature in concluding that the claim would have been obvious. Final Act. 28. Appellant argues that Vitito does not disclose the sensor being either of an infrared, laser, visible light and sound sensor. Appeal Br. 19–20. ISSUES Under § 103, has the Examiner erred by finding that Jabara, Eineren, and Vitito collectively would have taught or suggested: (1) the video camera including an integrated sensor for deriving positional and proximity information of the target as recited in claim 22? (2) the integrated sensor is a laser sensor as recited in claim 27? ANALYSIS Claim 22 We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 22 reciting that the video camera includes an integrated sensor for deriving positional and proximity information of the target. The Examiner finds that Vitito’s driver position monitoring system teaches proximity sensors to monitor the position of a driver. See Final Act. 27–28 (citing Vitito ¶ 35). The Examiner further finds that Vitito’s driver Appeal 2020-001942 Application 15/246,814 19 position monitoring system uses the proximity sensors in association with a camera for deriving the position and proximity information of a target, and although Vitito’s proximity sensors are separate from the camera, integral construction of the proximity sensors with the camera would be an obvious design choice. See Final Act. 7–8; Ans. 7–8. Appellant argues that because Vitito’s camera records a blind spot while the sensor determines the driver’s position, integrating Vitito’s sensor with the camera would not be an obvious design choice, as such an integration would not allow the device to function as intended to properly determine the driver’s position. See Appeal Br. 18. On this record, we find no error in the Examiner’s reliance upon the combination including Vitito for at least suggesting the video camera includes an integrated sensor. We first note that design choice is a valid consideration in rendering obvious the integration of components or a rearrangement of parts. See MPEP § 2144.04 (V)(B), (VI)(C). To be sure, Vitito’s proximity sensor lasers 152 are shown to be part of the same driver position monitoring system 150 as cameras 134, yet shown as separate elements. See Vitito ¶ 35; Fig. 4. Vitito also shows that cameras 134 can be placed in different locations of the system such as the left side of the car and the right side of the car, as well as the front and rear, and the cameras on the front left and right side of the car are closest to the sensors 152. See Vitito Fig. 4. Thus, integrating Vitito’s cameras 134 in front of the car with the sensors 152 located nearby would not impact the operation of the cameras 134 in the back of the car. See Vitito Fig. 4. To the extent Appellant contends otherwise, there is no persuasive evidence on this record to substantiate such a contention. Appeal 2020-001942 Application 15/246,814 20 Moreover Vitito teaches that cameras 134 are positioned for accurate imaging using servo motors. See Vitito ¶ 35. Accordingly, any change in position to Vitito’s cameras resulting from their integration with the proximity sensor lasers as the Examiner proposes could be accounted for by the camera’s positioning servo motors. That is, notwithstanding an integration into the same camera module, Vitito’s camera 134 is ideally positioned by the servo motor to provide an accurate display, providing for intended functionality of the proximity sensor lasers 152 to be directed towards the driver for monitoring. Moreover, as evidenced by Eineren, camera modules are an integration of one or more cameras, servo motors, control electronics, etc., where the integration into the module and its housing substantially isolates the components enclosed therein from a surrounding environment. See Eineren ¶ 57. Therefore, we see no error in the Examiner’s findings that integrating Vitito’s cameras 134 with the proximity laser sensors 152 would have been a matter of engineering design choice to integrate these distinct components in a unitary housing. See Final Act. 7–8; Ans. 7–8. To the extent Appellant contends otherwise, or that the Examiner’s proposed integration would have been beyond the level of ordinarily skilled artisans, there is no persuasive evidence on this record to substantiate such a contention. Accordingly we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 22. Appeal 2020-001942 Application 15/246,814 21 Claim 27 We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 27 reciting the integrated sensor either of an infrared sensor, a laser sensor, visible light sensor, and a sound sensor. See Final Act. 28. Our emphasis on the term “either of” underscores that only one of the recited alternatives need be taught or suggested by the prior art to satisfy the claim. Therefore, to the extent Appellant contends that the claim requires all of the recited sensors by emphasizing the word “and” (see Appeal Br. 19– 20), such an argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claim that requires only one of the recited sensors to satisfy the claim given its alternative “either of” language. On this record, Appellant does not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s reliance on Vitito’s proximity sensor for teaching the recited laser sensor, particularly given Vitito’s teaching in paragraph 35 that the proximity sensors can be a series of lasers. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 27. Appeal 2020-001942 Application 15/246,814 22 THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER JABARA, EINEREN, AND OH Regarding dependent claim 19, the Examiner acknowledges that Jabara lacks the cover being constructed with reinforced glass, and cites Oh as teaching this feature in concluding that the claim would have been obvious. Final Act. 29. Appellant argues that while Oh discloses reinforced glass, Oh does not relate to camera systems, or a camera positioned within an inset formed on an event surface. See Appeal Br. 20–21. ISSUE I. Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 19 by finding that Jabara, Eineren, and Oh collectively would have taught or suggested a cover is constructed with reinforced glass? II. Is the Examiner’s proposed combination of the cited references supported by articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to justify the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion? This issue turns on whether the Examiner’s proposed combination is based on impermissible hindsight reconstruction. ANALYSIS We begin by noting that the Examiner’s reliance on the Oh reference to teach reinforced glass is undisputed. See Appeal Br. 21 (admitting that Oh discloses reinforced glass). Rather, this dispute turns solely on the Examiner’s reliance on the combination of Jabara, Eineren and Oh for teaching the recited cover is constructed with reinforced glass. Therefore, Appeal 2020-001942 Application 15/246,814 23 we confine our discussion to the combination of record as it discloses a cover constructed with reinforced glass. We find no error in the Examiner’s findings that Oh teaches a cover glass with reinforcing glass. See Final Act. 29 (citing Oh ¶ 35). Although Oh labels this glass as reinforcing glass—not reinforced glass as claimed— this distinction is without a meaningful difference here, for Appellant admits that Oh discloses reinforced glass as noted previously. See Appeal Br. 21. To the extent Appellant contends that it would not have been obvious to combine Oh’s cover glass with Jabara’s distributed video cameras and Eineren’s camera module with a cover placed under the road surface for inspecting vehicles undercarriage (see Appeal Br. 20–22), we are not persuaded. Leaving aside Oh’s suggesting using its cover glass with a camera in paragraph 35, which conflicts with Appellant’s contention that Oh “in no way” relates to camera systems and is unrelated art (see Appeal Br. 20–21), Appellant does not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s proposal to modify Jabara’s video cameras to include the protection of Oh’s reinforced glass covering, with the Eineren’s camera module with cover inset in an event surface. See Final Act. 29; Ans. 9–10. Rather, Appellant argues generally that the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. See Appeal Br. 20–21. Therefore, to the extent Appellant contends that the Examiner’s rejection in view of the Jabara, Eineren and Oh combination lacks sufficient rational underpinning, we are not persuaded. Nor are we persuaded that the Examiner has employed impermissible hindsight reconstruction in relying upon Jabara and Eineren in combination with Oh’s cover glass. See Appeal Br. 21–22. To be sure, any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based on hindsight Appeal 2020-001942 Application 15/246,814 24 reasoning, so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from Appellant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971). In this case, the Examiner has not simply concluded that the combination of Jabara, Eineren and Oh would have been obvious, but provides a rationale why it would have been obvious to combine the references as providing the benefit of protecting the camera (see Final Act. 29; Ans. 10), which Appellant has not persuasively rebutted. Accordingly, we are not persuaded on this record that the Examiner has used impermissible hindsight reconstruction. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 19. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER JABARA, EINEREN, AND CHENG Regarding dependent claim 31, the Examiner acknowledges that Jabara lacks a means for sequentially activating one or more of said plurality of video cameras in response to a target’s proximity to the video cameras, and cites Cheng as teaching this feature in concluding that the claim would have been obvious. Final Act. 29–30. Appellant argues that Cheng does not disclose activating select ones of a plurality of video cameras, and thus does not disclose sequentially activating a plurality of video cameras. See Appeal Br. 22–23. Appeal 2020-001942 Application 15/246,814 25 ISSUE I. Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 31 by finding that Jabara, Eineren, and Cheng collectively would have taught or suggested a means for sequentially activating one or more of the video cameras in response to a target's proximity as the target moves along the event surface? II. Is the Examiner’s proposed combination of the cited references supported by articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to justify the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion? This issue turns on whether the Examiner’s proposed combination is based on impermissible hindsight reconstruction. ANALYSIS We begin by noting that the claimed means is not recited in terms of what it is, but rather what it does, namely that it sequentially activates one or more video cameras in response to a target’s proximity to the video cameras to capture images of the target moving along the event surface. That is, apart from indicating that the means is part of an integrated camera system, claim 31 recites no particular apparatus structure to perform the recited sequentially activating function. We, therefore, interpret the recited means for sequentially activating under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Accordingly, we construe the recited means for sequentially activating in light of the corresponding structure in the Specification and its equivalents. See In re Donaldson Co., Inc., 16 F.3d 1189, 1193 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc). Appeal 2020-001942 Application 15/246,814 26 On page 4 of the Appeal Brief, Appellant refers to the Specification’s paragraph 30 for disclosing the recited means for sequentially activating. Appeal Br. 4. According to the Specification’s paragraph 30, motors cause each respective mesh camera to track the movement of a player as he/she passes within the viewing area of each, responsive to motion data via a sensor.7 Spec. ¶ 30. Given this corresponding structure and its equivalents, we find no error in the Examiner’s reliance upon Cheng’s trigger module 104 of camera device 1. See Final Act. 30 (citing Cheng ¶¶ 20–30; Fig. 3). Cheng’s trigger module 104 takes a photo of an object responsive to detection of the object being within a preset distance by a proximity sensor 12, thus avoiding requiring the user to press a shutter of the camera device. See Cheng ¶¶ 20– 23. Accordingly, Cheng discloses the trigger module’s actions as a replacement for a manual button press that ordinarily would have been performed by a user. In this way, the trigger module of Cheng is an equivalent to a motor moving the shutter of a camera, which is taking a picture in response to proximity detection resulting from an object moving within proximity to the camera. Therefore, we find no error in the Examiner’s reliance on Cheng’s trigger module for at least suggesting the claimed means for sequentially activating. Appellant contends that Cheng’s single still-shot camera does not suggest activating select ones of a plurality of video cameras. See Appeal Br. 22. However, we agree with the Examiner’s findings that, in 7 We leave to the Examiner to determine if this disclosure is sufficient structure for the claimed means for sequentially activating to be definite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Appeal 2020-001942 Application 15/246,814 27 consideration of the combination of cited references, including Jabara which teaches plural video cameras, activating of one or more of these video cameras would have been obvious. See Final Act. 30; Ans. 10–12. Notwithstanding, Cheng does not explicitly limit its camera device 1 to be a still-shot camera, and at least suggests video functionality in that the storage system of the camera stores video files. See Cheng ¶ 11. We also find unavailing Appellant contentions that Cheng fails to teach or suggest sequentially activating cameras. See Appeal Br. 22–23. Appellant characterizes Cheng as being concerned with minimizing blur, and capturing “a single image only” (Appeal Br. 22); however, we do not find—nor has the Appellant specifically cited to—portions of Cheng that intend to so limit Cheng’s proximity triggered photo taking process. Furthermore, because the claimed activating is of one or more cameras, Appellant’s arguments regarding Cheng not teaching sequentially activating a plurality of video cameras (see Appeal Br. 22–23) are not commensurate with the scope of the claim. Contrary to Appellant’s contention that it is inconceivable how a single camera activation suggests sequential activation of capturing a moving target (see Appeal Br. 23), we can conceive of a scenario where a target subject, in the course of its movements that happen along an axis different than that which cameras are arranged, moves in and out of the proximity range of a single camera, therefore creating at least a sequence of (1) activation, then (2) no activation, then (3) re-activation as a picture or video is captured with that one camera. Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s reliance on Cheng as teaching sequentially activating one or more of said cameras. Appellant’s Appeal 2020-001942 Application 15/246,814 28 arguments are, therefore, not commensurate with the scope of the claim that does not preclude sequentially activating a single camera. To the extent that Appellant contends that the Examiner employs impermissible hindsight reconstruction in relying upon a combination of references in rejecting the claims rather than “citing a single reference that discloses a video camera system having cameras positioned within an opening formed on an event surface to capture images of a performer,” (see Appeal Br. 24), we are unpersuaded. To be sure, [a]ny judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based on hindsight reasoning, . . . so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from Appellant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. McLaughlin, 443 F.2d at 1395. In this case, the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion is based the collective teachings of Jabara, Eineren and Cheng. See Ans. 10–11 (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)). Moreover, contrary to Appellant’s contentions about the deficiencies of the rejections (see Appeal Br. 24), the Examiner has not simply concluded that the combination of Jabara, Eineren and Cheng would have been obvious, but provides a rationale why it would have been obvious to combine the references as providing the benefit of decreased blur (see Final Act. 30), which Appellant has not persuasively rebutted. Accordingly, we are not persuaded on this record that the Examiner has used impermissible hindsight reconstruction. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 31, and claim 32 not argued separately with particularity. Appeal 2020-001942 Application 15/246,814 29 CONCLUSION In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 15–18, 20, 21, 23–26, 28–30, 33, 34 103 Jabara, Eineren 15–18, 20, 21, 23–26, 28–30, 33, 34 22, 27 103 Jabara, Eineren, Vitito 22, 27 19 103 Jabara, Eineren, Oh 19 31, 32 103 Jabara, Eineren, Cheng 31, 32 Overall Outcome 15–34 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