Ex Parte Schieltz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 16, 2018

14052528 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 16, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/052,528 10/11/2013
103122 7590 03/20/2018
HoustonHogle LLP
Joseph Houston, HoustonHogle LLP
1666 Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 12
Lexington, MA 02420
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Steven W. Schieltz
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.
0270.0032US1/R-SN-00215US 1037
EXAMINER
CAMARGO, MARLY S.B.
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2664
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/20/2018 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):
docketing@houstonllp.com
grant.houston@houstonllp.com
eleahy@tycoint.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte STEVENW. SCHIELTZ and WALTER A. MARTIN 1
Appeal2017-008541
Application 14/052,528
Technology Center 2600
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-3, 5-15, and 17-27, which are all the claims pending
in this application. Claims 4 and 16 were cancelled. App. Br. 11, 13
(Claims App'x). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is the Applicant,
Sensormatic Electronics, LLC. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2017-008541
Application 14/052,528
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' application relates to monitoring temperatures related to a
video camera and adjusting operating parameters of the camera in response
to the detected temperatures. Spec. i-f 8. Claims 1 and 27 illustrate the
appealed subject matter and read as follows:
1. A thermal control method for a video camera, the method
compnsmg:
detecting a control board temperature of a camera
electronics control board with a board temperature sensor and
detecting an imager temperature of an imager with an imager
temperature sensor of the video camera within an enclosure of
the video camera; and
adjusting operating parameters of the video camera in
response to the detected control board temperature and the
detected imager temperature and determining that the at least
one of the camera electronics control board and the imager is at
risk of an over-temperature condition based on the detected
control board temperature and the imager temperature.
27. A thermal control method for a video camera, the method
compnsmg:
tracking daily temperatures of components of the video
camera;
tracking daily temperatures outside of the video camera;
determining and storing temperature cycles of the video
camera by combining the tracked daily temperatures of the
components and the tracked daily temperatures outside the
video camera;
detecting temperatures of components of the video
camera;
detecting a temperature outside of an enclosure of the
video camera;
predicting changes in temperatures of the components of
2
Appeal2017-008541
Application 14/052,528
the video camera using the stored temperature cycles of the
video camera;
determining if the video camera is at risk of an over-
temperature condition based on the detected temperature of the
components and the detected temperature outside of the
enclosure; and
adjusting operation parameters to prevent the over-
temperature condition based on the predicted changes in the
temperatures of the components.
The Examiner's Rejections
Claims 1-3, 5-12, 25, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2013/0120630 Al; May 16, 2013);
Niederberger et al. (US 2014/0311209 Al; Oct. 23, 2014); and Kirmuss (US
2003/0081934 Al; May 1, 2003). Final Act. 5-23.
Claims 13-15, 17-24, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Kim, Niederberger, Kirmuss, and Suzuki (US
8,018,505 B2; Sept. 13, 2011). Final Act. 23--41.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants'
contentions. Except as noted below, we adopt as our own: (1) the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Final Action from which this
appeal is taken; and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief. We concur
with the Examiner's conclusions. We highlight the following additional
points.
3
Appeal2017-008541
Application 14/052,528
Independent claim 1
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as
unpatentable over Kim, Niederberger, and Kirmuss. App. Br. 4-6; Reply
Br. 1-2. In particular, Appellants argue neither Kim nor Kirmuss teaches
the claimed imager temperature sensor and the Examiner turns to
Niederberger for this limitation. App. Br. 5-6. Appellants argue the
invention is not directed to merely including various temperature sensors,
but also to adjusting operating parameters of a video camera in response to
detected temperatures. Id. at 6. Appellants argue none of the references
contemplates including the particular claimed combination of temperature
sensors and adjusting the operating parameters in response to detected
temperatures. Id. at 6.
Appellants have not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner
finds, and we agree, Kim teaches a device with a temperature sensor that
adjusts operating parameters to prevent the device from operating at a high
temperature. Ans. 40--41 (citing Kim ,-r,-r 64-70). The Examiner finds
Kirmuss teaches a temperature sensor directly connected to an electronic
board and Niederberger teaches a temperature sensor directly connected to
an image sensor. Ans. 41--43 (citing Kirmuss ,-r,-r 40, 130, 131;
Niederberger Fig. 2, ,-r 21, 34-39).
Appellants' argument that none of the references teaches the
particular claimed combination of temperature sensors and adjusting the
operating parameters in response to detected temperatures is unpersuasive
because it focuses on each individual reference instead of considering the
combined teachings of the references. One cannot show nonobviousness by
attacking references individually when the rejection is based on a
4
Appeal2017-008541
Application 14/052,528
combination of references. In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097
(Fed. Cir. 1986); see also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
The Examiner explained that the combination of Kirmuss, Kim, and
Niederberger, not any reference alone, discloses the claimed invention. Ans.
40--43.
Moreover, Appellants have not provided persuasive argument or
evidence to rebut the Examiner's findings regarding each reference's
teachings or the combined teachings of the references. We, therefore,
sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 as unpatentable over Kim,
Niederberger, and Kirmuss. We also sustain the obviousness rejections of
dependent claims 2, 3, 5-12, and 25, for which Appellants do not offer
separate arguments. See App. Br. 4-9. We also sustain the rejection of
independent claim 13 as unpatentable over Kim, Niederberger, and Kirmuss,
for which Appellants offer the same arguments (see App. Br. 8-9), or claims
14, 15, 17, 18, 20-24, and 26, dependent therefrom.
Independent claim 2 7
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 27 as
unpatentable over Kim, Niederberger, and Kirmuss. App. Br. 7-8; Reply
Br. 3-5. In particular, Appellants argue claim 27 uses past data and current
temperatures to mitigate the risk that the camera becomes too hot. App. Br.
7-8. According to Appellants, none of the cited references "shows or
suggests or even hints at such an intelligent, adaptive system." Id. at 8.
Appellants have not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner
finds, and we agree, Kim teaches tracking the temperature for a mobile
device, including tracking the ambient temperature (i.e., temperature outside
the device), and internal temperature. Ans. 51 (citing Kim i-fi-141--43). The
5
Appeal2017-008541
Application 14/052,528
Examiner further finds, and we agree, Kim teaches retaining the tracked
temperature from outside the device (Table 1) and inside the device (Table
2) for different periods of time set by the user and that it would have been
obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to track the daily temperature. Ans.
51-52 (citing Kim ,-r,-r 41-43).
Appellants respond that the Examiner misconstrues the teachings of
Kim, arguing that Kim does not teach "stor[ ing] temperature cycles of the
video camera by combining the tracked daily temperatures of the
components and the tracked daily temperatures outside the video camera."
Reply Br. 4. However, Appellants have not persuasively identified any error
in the Examiner's findings. Instead, Appellants merely assert, without
explanation, that Kim does not disclose the claimed features. As stated by
the Federal Circuit, Rule 41.37 "require[s] more substantive arguments in an
appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked
assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art." In
re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded of Examiner error. We, therefore,
sustain the rejection of independent claim 27 as unpatentable over Kim,
Niederberger, and Kirmuss.
Dependent claims 7 and 19
Claim 7 recites "[t]he method of claim 1, wherein adjusting the
operating parameters includes changing a video compression of video data
by the video camera." Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 7 as unpatentable over Kim, Niederberger, and Kirmuss. App. Br. 7;
Reply Br. 2-3. In particular, Appellants argue "the claim is not simply
directed to video compression, which is concededly well-known. Instead,
6
Appeal2017-008541
Application 14/052,528
claim 7 requires adjusting the video compression based on the detected
temperatures of the camera." App. Br. 7. According to Appellants, Kirmuss
does not teach or suggest changing video compression in response to the
detected control board temperature and imager temperature, as claimed.
App. Br. 7.
Appellants have not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner
finds, and we agree, Kirmuss teaches a mobile device including a control
board connected to a temperature sensor and a wavelet video compression
engine. Ans. 49 (citing Kirmuss Fig. 2, i-fi-f 131, 132). The Examiner further
finds, and we agree, Kirmuss teaches adjusting operating parameters to
manage the temperature of the video camera, which the Examiner interprets
to include changing the compression of the video signals. Ans. 49 (citing
Kirmuss Fig. 2, i-fi-f 131, 132). Appellants do not respond directly to this
finding or provide persuasive argument or evidence to rebut the Examiner's
finding. Accordingly, we are not persuaded of Examiner error.
We, therefore, sustain the rejection of claim 7 as unpatentable over
Kim, Niederberger, and Kirmuss. We also sustain the obviousness rejection
of claim 19, for which Appellants offer the same argument. See App. Br. 9.
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-3, 5-15,
and 17-27.
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). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
7