Ex Parte McMordie et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 22, 2018

12881594 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/881,594 09/14/2010
23517 7590 03/26/2018
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP (BO)
1111 PENNSYLVANIA A VENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20004
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
David McMordie
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.
VII-002 1343
EXAMINER
BENNETT, STUART D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2481
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/26/2018 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):
kcatalano@morganlewis.com
patents@morganlewis.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID McMORDIE and MICHAEL F. KELLY
Appeal2017-010550
Application 12/881,594
Technology Center 2400
Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, HUNG H. BUI, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants 1 appeal from the
Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-27, the only claims pending in the
application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Viion Systems, Inc.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal2017-010550
Application 12/881,594
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 'Invention
Appellants' invention generally relates to "systems and methods for
the detection, tracking and recognition of objects" such as "faces, eyes, irises
and/or other facial characteristics, license plates and other objects of interest
in a variety of environments and conditions." Spec. i-f 2.
Claim 1, which is illustrative, reads as follows:
1. A device for detecting objects of interest within a scene,
the device comprising:
a wide-angle camera configured to acquire an image of the
scene and to simultaneously detect a plurality of objects of
interest within the scene;
a telephoto camera configured to sequentially and
repeatedly acquire a high-resolution image of each of the
plurality of the objects of interest;
a moving mirror assembly for adjusting an aim of the
telephoto camera;
an image processor configured to (i) identify a location of
each of the plurality of the objects of interest within the scene,
(ii) control movement of the mirror assembly such that the
telephoto camera is aimed at, and acquires the high-resolution
images of each of the plurality of the objects of interest
individually in sequence, and (iii) creating a plurality of sub-
videos, each corresponding to a temporal sequence of the high-
resolution images of one of the objects of interest individually.
Examiner's Rejections & References
(1) Claims 1, 2, 7-9, 12, 16, 18, 19, 22-24, and 26 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of
Scanlon et al. (US 2007 /0250898 Al; published Oct. 25, 2007) ("Scanlon"),
Park et al. (US 2002/0180759 Al; published Dec. 5, 2002) ("Park"), and
2
Appeal2017-010550
Application 12/881,594
Alberth, Jr. et al. (US 2009/0174805 Al; published July 9, 2009)
("Alberth"). Final Act. 5-10.
(2) Claims 3---6 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Scanlon, Park, Alberth, and
Hyatt (US 2008/0068451 Al; published Mar. 20, 2008). Final Act. 10-12.
(3) Claims 10 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Scanlon, Park, Alberth, and
Lyons (US 6,734,911 Bl; issued May 11, 2004). Final Act. 12-13.
(4) Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Scanlon and Park. Final Act. 13-15.
(5) Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Scanlon, Park, Alberth, and Jouppi
(US 2002/0063726 Al; published May 30, 2002). Final Act. 15.
(6) Claims 17, 21, 25, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Scanlon, Park,
Alberth, and Arrighetti (US 2009/0207046 Al; published Aug. 20, 2009).
Final Act. 16-17.
(7) Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Scanlon, Park, Alberth, and Miller et
al. (US 2004/0100567 Al; published May 27, 2004) ("Miller"). Final
Act. 17-18.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1and22
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claims 1 and 22 because the combination of Scanlon, Park, and Alberth is
3
Appeal2017-010550
Application 12/881,594
improper because one skilled in the art would not combine: (1) Scanlon and
Park; (2) Alberth and Park; and (3) Alberth and Scanlon. App. Br. 8-10;
Reply Br. 3---6. Regarding the combination of Scanlon and Park, Appellants
argue:
Scanlon describes an approach for providing detailed
imagery of targets of interest by extracting virtual narrow-angle
views from a wide-angle video stream acquired using a primary
surveillance camera that contains a wide field of view and covers
a large physical area. Accordingly, Scanlon's narrow-angle view
is merely an image extraction of a wide-angle video stream and
is not a high-resolution image acquired using a high-resolution
telephoto camera as required by claims 1 and 22. In fact,
Scanlon's objective is to utilize fewer cameras to monitor a large
area while obviating the need for a high-resolution camera.
Therefore, one of skill in the art would not implement a high-
resolution telephoto camera in Scanlon's system because doing
so would defeat the objective Scanlon aims to achieve, which is
to eliminate the need for such a camera.
App. Br. 8 (citing Scanlon i-fi-13-5, 35) (internal citations omitted).
Appellants further argue "[b ]ecause one of skill in the art would not
modify Scanlon's system to include a high-resolution telephoto camera, s/he
likewise would not add a moving mirror assembly for adjusting the aim of
such a camera." App. Br. 8-9. According to Appellants, "the moving
mirror is necessary in Park's system because the high-resolution camera 16
that it directs has a narrow field of view," while "Scanlon describes
acquiring a wide-angle, high-resolution video stream Reply Br. 3--4 (citing
Scanlon, Fig. IA; Park i-fi-134--39, 73). Appellants argue:
[B]ecause the acquired video stream in Scanlon already
has a wide-angle view and high resolution, Scanlon can provide
detailed imagery of targets of interest by simply extracting
narrow-angle views from the video stream. Thus, Park's solution
addresses a problem that Scanlon does not have. Park uses a
4
Appeal2017-010550
Application 12/881,594
narrow-angle, high-resolution camera 16 because his resolution
over a wide angle is inadequate. Scanlon's video stream covers
a wide angle at high resolution, so there is no need to enhance
the resolution at all, much less with the mechanically complex
moving mirror disclosed in Park.
Reply Br. 4.
We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive. Initially, we note
the Examiner does not rely on Scanlon's teaching regarding an extraction
process used to obtain high-resolution images. Instead, the Examiner relies
upon Scanlon's teaching of acquiring high-resolution images of each of the
plurality of objects of interest in combination with Scanlon' s teaching that it
was known to capture high-resolution images using a high-resolution,
narrow-angled (e.g., telephoto) camera. Final Act. 6 (citing Scanlon,
Figs. lA--C; ifif 3, 36.
Further, we disagree with Appellants' characterization that the
objective of Scanlon's invention is to obviate[ e] the need for a high-
resolution camera. Instead, Scanlon teaches that a common issue facing
designers of security systems is the tradeoff between the area of coverage for
a particular sensor and the actual effectiveness of the sensor. Scanlon if 3.
Scanlon describes the tradeoffusing two extreme cases. Id. Scanlon
describes one extreme as using a limited number of wide-angle cameras
strategically placed to provide complete coverage of the area under
surveillance. Id. Scanlon teaches that using a limited number of wide-angle
cameras provides a simple and cost-effective means to monitor a large area
at the cost of potentially poor video resolution and an inadequate level of
detail when observing activities in the scene. Scanlon if 3. Scanlon
describes the other extreme as using a large number of narrow-angle
cameras to provide a greater level of detail of activities within the scene at a
5
Appeal2017-010550
Application 12/881,594
cost of incurring a greater operating cost to install and maintain the
increased number of video cameras as well as an increased complexity for
manual operators to maintain situational awareness over the entire scene. Id.
Scanlon describes a solution for allowing fewer cameras to monitor large
areas while still providing detailed imagery of targets or events of interest.
Scanlon i-f 4. Thus, contrary to Appellants' characterization (App. Br. 8),
Scanlon does not teach that an object of the invention is to eliminate the
need for use of a high-resolution telephoto camera but, instead, to allow
fewer cameras to monitor large areas while still providing detailed imagery
of targets or events of interest. At best, it can be argued that use of a high-
resolution, narrow-angled camera in combination with Park's moving mirror
assembly for adjusting the aim of the camera in place of Scanlon's
extraction process would result in using a larger number of cameras
compared to the number of cameras required using only Scanlon's extraction
process to obtain the high-resolution images. However, "[a] known or
obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been
described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use." In
re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Regarding the combination of Alberth and Park, Appellants argue:
Alberth describes an approach for adjusting a focusing
lens so as to sequentially focus on objects of interest in an image
frame. A focusing lens is not a mirror and cannot be equated to
the mirror disclosed in Park. Indeed, because Park's system uses
a rotating mirror to point a single-lens camera at a selected area,
Park has no need for any focusing adjustment system and, in fact,
Park discloses no variable focusing mechanism.
App. Br. 9 (citing Park i-fi-135, 39; Alberth i-fi-1 10, 25, 35) (internal citations
omitted). Appellants further argue "Park teaches using the moving mirror
6
Appeal2017-010550
Application 12/881,594
merely to change the field of view of the narrow-angle camera 16" and
"changing the field of view has nothing to do with focusing." Reply Br. 6
(citing Park i-f 39).
Regarding the combination of Alberth and Scanlon, Appellants argue
one skilled in the art would not be motivated to combine Alberth's teaching
of sequential focusing into the system of Scanlon because "Scanlon avoids
the need for a high-resolution telephoto camera by using a wide-angle lens
and extracting a region of interest from an image that his system acquires"
and "Scanlon has no need for variable focusing" because "a fixed focal
length is common in wide-angle surveillance cameras." App. Br. 9; see also
Reply Br. 6.
We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive. As acknowledged
by the Examiner, "the Examiner has not relied upon Alberth's disclosure for
how to perform focusing" but, instead "Alberth was relied upon for
disclosing that multiple objects can be focused sequentially." Ans. 18
(citing Park i-f 34). In particular, the Examiner finds "one of ordinary skill in
the art would utilize Park's mirror for focusing on an object of interest and
when presented with multiple objects of interest, it would have been obvious
to have some established order for sequentially imaging the objects of
interest, as taught by Alberth." Ans. 18-19 (citing Alberth, Figs. 1, 2).
Appellants' arguments fail to address theExaminer' s findings and, therefore,
are unpersuasive of error.
For the foregoing reasons, we are unpersuaded the Examiner erred in
combining Scanlon, Park, and Alberth.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 22;
and claims 2-12, 15-21, and 23-27, which depend from claims 1and22 and
7
Appeal2017-010550
Application 12/881,594
are not separately argued. Regarding the rejection of claim 13, Appellants
rely on the arguments presented for claims 1 and 22. See App. Br. 10.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 13; and claim 14,
which depends from claim 13 and is not separately argued, for the reasons
discussed supra with respect to claims 1 and 22.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-27 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8