Ex Parte Pilu

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 13, 2012

10877676 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 13, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte MAURIZIO PILU
____________________

Appeal 2009-012454
Application 10/877,676
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, DENISE M. POTHIER, and BRUCE R.
WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judges.

MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-012454
Application 10/877,676

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1-50. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary independent claim 1 under appeal reads as follows:
1. An image capture system, comprising:
an image capture device, the image capture device
comprising:
an image detector;
a plurality of user interface controls to select mounting
inputs that each correspond to a plurality of mounting
arrangements of the image capture device for fixing the image
capture device to an object;
a memory wherein a plurality of image capture settings
associated with the mounting inputs are stored; and
a processor that receives information from a selected
mounting input, that accesses the associated image capture
setting corresponding to the selected mounting input, and that
controls image capture in accordance with the image capture
setting; and
an image capture device mounting to fix the image capture
device in a desired mounting arrangement on the object.

Rejections
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 25, 39, and 46 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Saito (US 5,631,699). 1

1 Separate patentability is not argued for the remaining claims rejected either
under 102(b) and 103(a). See Br. 6-14.
Appeal 2009-012454
Application 10/877,676

3
Appellant’s Contentions
1. As to claims 1, 2, 6-8, 15-19, and 21, Appellant collectively
contends that Saito does not support a finding of anticipation. (App. Br 7-8).
Appellant’s argument is structured as five paragraphs. The first, second and
fourth paragraphs merely quote claim language and at most add a statement
that the reference fails to teach the quoted claim language. The third
paragraph describes teachings of Saito. The fifth paragraph makes a
statement that “Saito does not anticipate claim 1” and references the claims
depending therefrom.
2. As to claims 25-27, 30, and 35-38, Appellant collectively
contends that Saito does not support a finding of anticipation. (App. Br 8-9).
Appellant’s argument is structured as four paragraphs. The first and second
paragraphs merely quote claim language and at most add a statement that the
reference fails to teach the quoted claim language. The third paragraph
describes teachings of Saito, again quotes claim language, and asserts again
that the reference fails to teach the quoted claim language. The fourth
paragraph makes a statement that “Saito does not anticipate claim 25” and
references the claims depending therefrom.
3. As to claims 39, 40, and 45, Appellant collectively contends
that Saito does not support a finding of anticipation. (App. Br 10-11).
Appellant’s argument is structured as four paragraphs. The first and second
paragraphs merely quote claim language and at most add a statement that the
reference fails to teach the quoted claim language. The third paragraph
describes teachings of Saito, again quotes claim language, and asserts again
that the reference fails to teach the quoted claim language. The fourth
Appeal 2009-012454
Application 10/877,676

4
paragraph makes a statement that “Saito does not anticipate claim 39” and
references the claims depending therefrom.
4. As to claims 46, 47, and 50, Appellant collectively contends
that Saito does not support a finding of anticipation. (App. Br 11-12).
Appellant’s argument is structured as four paragraphs. The first and second
paragraphs merely quote claim language and at most add a statement that the
reference fails to teach the quoted claim language. The third paragraph
describes teachings of Saito, again quotes claim language, and asserts again
that the reference fails to teach the quoted claim language. The fourth
paragraph makes a statement that “Saito does not anticipate claim 46” and
references the claims depending therefrom.

Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1, 25, 39, and 46 as being
anticipated because Saito fails to describe the argued limitations?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
contentions that the Examiner has erred.
We disagree with Appellant’s conclusions. We adopt as our own
(1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from
which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We
concur with the conclusion reached by the Examiner.
Appellant’s contentions are all similarly structured. Appellant quotes
large portions of a claim, point out teachings of Saito, and asserts that Saito
does not anticipate the claim. We do not find any of the arguments by
Appeal 2009-012454
Application 10/877,676

5
Appellant adequately explain why any one of the quoted claim limitations is
not taught by Saito as set forth by the Examiner.

CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claim 1, 25, 39, and 46 as
being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
(2) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting the remaining claims as
being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(3) Claims 1-50 are not patentable.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-50 are 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

tj