Ex Parte Cohen et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 10, 2009

09703419 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 10, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte ERIC COHEN and TOMAS BRODSKY
________________

Appeal 2008-5654
Application 09/703,419
Technology Center 2600
________________

Decided:1 February 10, 2009
________________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, ROBERT E. NAPPI,
and MARC S. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
Appeal 2008-5654
Application 09/703,419

2
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final
rejection of claims 1, 4, 6, and 10 through 15.2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.

INVENTION
The invention is directed towards a method and apparatus for
automatically framing and tracking an object of interest. See generally Spec.
2:6-31. Claim 14 is representative of the invention and reproduced below:
14. An apparatus for automatically framing and tracking an
object of interest, the apparatus comprising:
a hand-held processing device including PDA’s, mobile
telephones, palmtops, and portable computers, having at least
one video camera integrated therein, the hand-held device
further comprising a processor operative to continuously
monitor the detection of relative movement between the hand-
held device and the object of interest, due to movement of a
user’s hand holding said device, said processor being
responsive to the detected relative movement for continuously
solely electronically adjusting, without use of a motor, at least
one setting of the camera so as to continuously maintain a
desired framing of the object of interest within an image
generated by the camera as a user manipulates the device, for
providing a stable image.

REFERENCES
Platte US 4,864,409 Sep. 5, 1989

Vincent US 6,195,122 B1 Feb. 27, 2001
(filed Jan. 31, 1996)

2 Claims 2, 3, 5, and 7-9 were previously canceled.
Appeal 2008-5654
Application 09/703,419

3
Saburi US 6,556,235 Apr. 29, 2003
(filed May 15, 2000)

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 4, 6, 10, and 12 through 15 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Platte in view of Saburi.
The Examiner rejected claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Platte in view of Saburi and further in view of Vincent.

ISSUE
Rejection of claims 1, 4, 6, 10, and 12 through 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Platte in view of Saburi.
Appellants argue on pages 9 through 12 of the Appeal Brief that the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4, 6, 10, and 12 through 15 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Platte in view of Saburi is in
error. We select independent claim 14 as representative of the group
comprising claims 1, 4, 6, 10, and 12 through 15 since Appellants did not
separately argue any of the claims with particularity. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Appellants argue that neither reference teaches “detecting
relative movement between the object and the camera and adjusting the
camera setting in accordance with the detected movement to maintain a
desired framing of the object.” App. Br. 11.
Thus, with respect to claims 1, 4, 6, 10, and 12 through 15,
Appellants’ contentions present us with the issue: have the Appellants
shown the Examiner erred in finding Platte and Saburi teach detecting
relative movement between the hand-held device and the object of interest
within a displayed image generated by said camera and continuously
Appeal 2008-5654
Application 09/703,419

4
electronically adjusting the camera, without use of a motor, in response to
the detected relative movement, so as to maintain the desired framing?

Rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Platte in view of Saburi
and further in view of Vincent.
Appellants argue on pages 12 through 13 of the Appeal Brief that the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Platte in view of Saburi and further in view of Vincent is
in error. Appellants’ reason that the claim is allowable based on its
dependency from claim 1. App. Br. 12-13.
Thus, Appellants’ contentions present the same issues as presented
with respect to claims 1, 4, 6, 10, and 12 through 15.

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Platte discloses a television camera that corrects for sudden
movements, through the use of an acceleration correction device,
in order to prevent blurring. Platte, Abstract.
2. In order to correct for sudden movements, “a section of an image is
reproduced on a target 1 by the objective lens of the camera.”
Platte, col. 2, ll. 14-15 and Fig. 1A.
3. The desired field 2 is scanned line by line at a starting point S.
Platte, col. 2, ll. 17-20 and Fig. 1A.
4. “In FIG. 1B, blurring caused by sudden, inadvertent shifting of the
camera housing and thus of target 1 has shifted field 2 on target 1
in the positive x direction. This shift is detected and
correspondingly the starting point S of the raster deflection is
Appeal 2008-5654
Application 09/703,419

5
shifted by an amount +Δx so that, in spite of the blurring, scanning
of target 1 again begins at a point S’, i.e. at the beginning of the
desired field 2.” Platte, col. 2, ll. 29-36 and Fig. 1B.
5. “In FIG. 1C, blurring has caused field 2 on target 1 to be shifted in
the negative x direction and in the positive y direction.
Accordingly, a starting point S’’ for the raster-type scanning of
target 1 is also shifted.” Platte, col. 2, ll. 40-43 and Fig. 1C.
6. “Thus, in all cases the desired field 2 is always scanned beginning
at the starting point of the frame independently of the direction and
the degree of blurring.” Platte, col. 2, ll. 43-45.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Office personnel must rely on Appellants’ disclosure to properly
determine the meaning of the terms used in the claims. Markman v.
Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 980 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc).
“[I]nterpreting what is meant by a word in a claim ‘is not to be confused
with adding an extraneous limitation appearing in the specification, which is
improper.’” In re Cruciferous Sprout Litigation, 301 F.3d 1343, 1348,
(emphasis in original) (citing Intervet Am., Inc. v. Kee-Vet Labs., Inc., 887
F.2d 1050, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).

ANALYSIS
Rejection of claims 1, 4, 6, 10, and 12 through 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Platte in view of Saburi.
Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred
in rejecting claims 1, 4, 6, 10, and 12 through 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appeal 2008-5654
Application 09/703,419

6
over Platte in view of Saburi. Appellants argue that neither reference
teaches “tracking the image and adjusting the camera to maintain a desired
framing.” App. Br. 10-11. Appellants additionally argue that Platte
discloses detecting relative movement of the camera only and not detecting
relative movement between an object and the camera. Reply Br. 5. The
Examiner found that Platte does teach the limitations as recited in the claims
and not what is argued by Appellants. Ans. 8-9. In addition, the Examiner
found that Platte’s desired field 2 within the target 1 is equivalent to the
framing required in the claim. Ans. 9. We agree with the Examiner.
Claim 14 recites: “the hand-held device further comprising a
processor operative to continuously monitor the detection of relative
movement between the hand-held device and the object of interest, due to
movement of the user’s hand holding said device.” Thus, claim 14 is
monitoring movement caused by the user moving the hand-held device.
Claim 14 further recites “said processor being responsive to the detected
relative movement for continuously solely electronically adjusting, without
use of a motor, at least one setting of the camera so as to continuously
maintain a desired framing of the object of interest within an image
generated by the camera.” Thus, as the hand-held device is moved, the
processor electronically compensates for the movement in order to maintain
the image. Platte discloses these claim limitations.
As indicated above, while Appellants argue that Platte does not teach
tracking the object, the Examiner finds that this is not what is required by
claim 14. Ans. 9. We agree with the Examiner. All that is required by the
claim is that relative movement between the device and the object of interest
Appeal 2008-5654
Application 09/703,419

7
is monitored and an adjustment is made to provide a stable image. This is
precisely what Platte discloses.
Platte teaches a television camera that corrects sudden movements, through
the use of an acceleration correction device, in order to prevent blurring of
an image. FF 1. In order to do this, “a section of an image is reproduced on
a target 1.” FF 2. A desired field 2 is determined and is scanned within the
target 1 starting from a starting point S. FF 3. The desired field 2
constitutes the framing required by the claim. When a shift is detected in the
camera housing, an electronic adjustment is made to begin scanning the
desired field 2 according to the detected shift. FF 4. Therefore, as indicated
in Platte, if the camera housing is shifted and the target 1 is moved to the
left, then the starting point S of the desired field 2 is moved to the right. FF
4. If the camera housing is shifted and the target 1 is moved down and to the
right, then the starting point S of the desired field 2 is moved up and to the
left. FF 5. As a result, the desired field 2 is always scanned beginning at the
starting point S. FF 6. Therefore, Platte does disclose adjusting for relative
movement between the device and the object of interest, as required by
claim 14, and we sustain the Examiner’s rejection.
Rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Platte in view of Saburi
and further in view of Vincent.
Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4, 6, 10, and 12 through 15. Appellants’
arguments that the rejection of these claims is in error for the reasons
discussed with respect to claims 1, 4, 6, 10, and 12 through 15 is not
persuasive for the reasons discussed supra with respect to claims 1, 4, 6, 10,
Appeal 2008-5654
Application 09/703,419

8
and 12 through 15. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim
11.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in finding that Platte
and Saburi teach detecting relative movement between the hand-held device
and the object of interest within a displayed image generated by said camera
and continuously electronically adjusting the camera, without use of a
motor, in response to the detected relative movement, so as to maintain the
desired framing.

SUMMARY
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4, 6, and 10 through 15 is
affirmed.
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).

AFFIRMED

KIS

PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
P. O. BOX 3001
BRIARCLIFF MANOR, NY 10510