Ex Parte Gindin

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 17, 2016

13304231 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 17, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/304,231 11/23/2011
76019 7590 03/17/2016
ATAULLAH ARJOMAND
ARJOMAND LAW GROUP, PLLC
335 FRONT STREET SOUTH
ISSAQUAH, WA 98027
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jeffrey L. Gin din
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
5106-MOl-Ol 4008
EXAMINER
DOBBS, KRISTIN SENSMEIER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
03/17/2016 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 JEFFREY L. GINDIN
Appeal2016-002996
Application 13/304,231
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHN A. EV ANS, KAMRAN JIV ANI, and JOYCE CRAIG,
Administrative Patent Judges.
EV ANS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final rejection of Claims 1-16. App. Br. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.2
1 The Appeal Brief identifies the inventor, Mr. Jeffery L. Gindin, as the
Real Party in Interest. App. Br. 1.
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed July 14, 2015, "App. Br."), the Reply Brief
Appeal2016-002996
Application 13/304,231
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to a helmet-mounted video camera. See Abstract.
Claims 1 and 10 are independent. The claims have not been argued
separately and therefore stand or fall together. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary Claim 1, which is reproduced below with some formatting added:
1. A helmet comprising:
a head shield;
a video camera coupled with the head shield and
configured to generate video data from a scene substantially not
in the field of view of a wearer of the helmet;
a mounting base configured to act as a gyroscopic base
(page 5, lines 9-12) and couple the video camera 304 as a whole
unit with the helmet 350 (page 5, line 9) and further configured
to automatically, without user input, maintain a desired fixed
direction (page 5, line 12) of the video camera with respect to
ground independent of an orientation or change of orientation
of the helmet with respect to the ground; and
a display device 360 directly coupled with the video
camera 304 and configured to display the video data.
(filed Jan. 30, 2016, "Reply Br."), the Examiner's Answer (mailed Dec. 3,
2015, "Ans."), the Final Action (mailed January 23, 2015, "Final Act."), and
the Specification (filed Nov. 23, 2011, "Spec.") for the respective details.
2
Appeal2016-002996
Application 13/304,231
References and Rejections
The Examiner relies upon the prior art as follows:
Hara et al.
Zhou
Moscato
Monaghan Sr. et al.
US 2004/0141065 Al
US 2007/0271687 Al
US 2008/0239080 Al
US 2011/0261176 Al
July 22, 2004
Nov. 29, 2007
Oct. 2, 2008
Oct. 27, 2011
Claims 1-16 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Monaghan, Moscato, Zhou, and Hara. Final Act. 2-14.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1-16 in light of
Appellant's arguments that the Examiner has erred. We agree with
Appellant's conclusions. We consider Appellant's arguments seriatim, as
they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 11-14.
A gyroscopic base to fix the orientation and direction of the video camera.
Appellant contends the Examiner finds that neither Monaghan,
Moscato, nor Zhou teach the use of a gyroscopic base to fix the orientation
and direction of a video camera. Appellant disputes the Examiner's finding
that Hara so teaches. App. Br. 4. Appellant argues Hara teaches a
gyroscope deployed on the inside of the camera to control only an internal
component of the whole camera, while allowing the camera, itself, to be
3
Appeal2016-002996
Application 13/304,231
pointed in any direction. In contrast, the claimed gyroscopic base is external
to the camera, and controls the orientation of the entire camera as a unit.
App. Br. 5.
The Examiner finds Hara teaches two, internally-mounted gyroscopes,
that function to prevent shaking in the image taken by the camera. Ans. 15.
Monaghan teaches a camera unit having mounting joints allowing the
camera to orient in any direction. Hara is cited as teaching a "gyroscopic
base" such that the combination of Hara and Monaghan allows for pointing
the camera in any fixed direction. Ans. 16.
Appellant replies Claim 1 defines a structural relationship wherein a
camera unit sits atop, and is controlled by, a gyroscopic base. In contrast,
Hara teaches gyroscopes inside a camera to prevent shaking of internal
• TT ' 1 1 • 1 I' '• ' ' '• l" '1 mirrors. 11ara 1eacnes a gyroscope wmcn runcuons w prevem mouon or 1ne
mirror relative to the camera, whereas the claimed gyroscopic base functions
to prevent motion of the camera. Reply Br. 2. Appellant argues the
functioning ofHara's gyroscopes depends upon movement of the camera
because where the camera position remains fixed, there is no need for a
gyroscope because there is no relative motion of the mirror for which to
correct. Reply Br. 3.
Appellant contends Monaghan teaches mounting joints to allow a user
to manually alter the orientation of the camera, and even when properly
combined with Hara, the camera orientation cannot be maintained
automatically. Id.
4
Appeal2016-002996
Application 13/304,231
We agree with Appellant. We find the purposed combination of Hara
with Monaghan impem1issibly changes Hara's principle of operation. Hara
teaches a camera wherein a mirror deflects light passing along a first optical
axis, A, onto a second optical axis, B. Hara, ,-r 72. Hara discloses that
shaking of an image of an object upon taking a picture is caused by the
combination of a small-amplitude, 10 Hz vibration due to twitching of the
user's muscles, a large amplitude, 3 Hz or less vibration due to motion of the
user's body, and a 5 Hz vibration due to depression of the shutter button.
Hara, ,-r 67. Hara teaches the various vibrations may be cancelled by
appropriate, compensatory deflections to the angle of the mirror using an
"image shake prevention part" comprising a pair of gyroscopes. Hara, i-fi-1
73, 76.
r-y-'11 T"""'1 • , 1 • ' • • ' TT ' 1 • '' •
l ne bXammer s comomauon cues 11ara as 1eacnmg a gyroscopic
base" such that the combination of Hara and Monaghan allows for pointing
the camera in any fixed direction. Ans. 16. However, modifying Hara so as
to control Monaghan's swivel base changes Hara's principle of operation
because the gyroscopes would no longer compensate for the 3, 5, and 10 Hz
vibrations, as taught by Hara. "If the proposed modification or combination
of the prior art would change the principle of operation of the prior art
invention being modified, then the teachings of the references are not
sufficient to render the claims prima facie obvious." In re Ratti, 270 F.2d
810(CCPA1959). See TecAir, Inc. v. Denso Mfg. Mich. Inc., 192 F.3d
1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (Where the proposed modification would render
5
Appeal2016-002996
Application 13/304,231
the prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended
purpose, the proposed modification would not have been obvious).
DECISION
The rejection of Claims 1-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) is
REVERSED.
REVERSED
6