Ex Parte Slamka

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 4, 2018

13770870 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 4, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/770,870 02/19/2013
996 7590 12/06/2018
Fisher Broyles, LLP/Jablonski Law PLLC
945 East Paces Ferry Road NE
Suite 2000
Atlanta, GA 30328
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Milan Slamka
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.
710300.0002 3127
EXAMINER
SOSANYA, OBAFEMI OLUDAYO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/06/2018 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@fisherbroy les .com
kevin.jablonski@FisherBroyles.com
Christopher.freerks@fisherbroyles.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MILAN SLAMKA 1
Appeal2018-001490
Application 13/770,870
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHN A. EV ANS, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-16 and 21-24. Claims 17-20 are cancelled. We
have jurisdiction over the pending rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellant identifies Echo-Sense, Inc. as the real party in interest. (App.
Br. 4.)
Appeal2018-001490
Application 13/770,870
THE INVENTION
Appellant's disclosed and claimed invention is directed to two-way
communication between a monitoring user and scouts (e.g., officers or
soldiers), with images communicated from scout cameras to the monitoring
user. (Abstract; Spec. ,r 4.)
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal:
1. A system for providing two-way communication between
a monitoring user and one or more scouts remote from the
monitoring user, the system comprising:
a monitoring device; and
one or more scouting devices, each scouting device
including
a portable, body-mountable camera configured to
capture a video image; a positioning device configured to
detect a position of the respective scout device;
a scout transceiver isochronously coupled to the
camera such that video images captured by the camera
are isochronously communicated to the scout transceiver
and queued for transmitting to the monitoring device; and
an isochronous communication cable coupled
between the camera and the scout transceiver such that
the camera is remote from the scout transceiver;
and the monitoring device including
a monitoring transceiver communicatively coupled
to each respective scout transceiver such that each
scouting device communicates respective queued video
image to the monitoring transceiver in real time; and a
display configured to display each received queued video
image in real time with respect to the capturing of the
video images;
2
Appeal2018-001490
Application 13/770,870
wherein each scouting device is configured to transmit
the captured video image and the detected position to the
monitoring device; and
wherein the display is configured to display each
captured video image and to display each detected position on a
map.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1---6 and 8-16 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as being unpatentable over Howell et al. (US 7,806,525 B2, issued Oct. 5,
2010), Strandwitz et al. (US 6,522,352 Bl, issued Feb. 18, 2003), Smith et
al. (US 6,940,908 B 1, issued Sept. 6, 2005), and Horovitz et al. (US
2009/0295918 Al, pub. Dec. 3, 2009). (Final Act. 3-14.)
The Examiner rejected claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Howell, Strandwitz, Smith, Horovitz, and Bornstein et al.
(US 2011/0170005 Al, pub. July 14, 2011). (Final Act. 14--15.)
The Examiner rejected claims 21-24 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Howell, Strandwitz, and Smith. (Final Act. 15-17.)
ISSUE ON APPEAL
Appellant's arguments in the Appeal and Reply Briefs present the
following issue: 2
Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Howell,
Strandwitz, and Smith teaches or suggests the independent
claim 1 limitations:
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the positions of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed July 6, 2017); the Reply Brief
3
Appeal2018-001490
Application 13/770,870
a scout transceiver isochronously coupled to the
camera such that video images captured by the camera
are isochronously communicated to the scout transceiver
and queued for transmitting to the monitoring device; and
an isochronous communication cable coupled
between the camera and the scout transceiver such that
the camera is remote from the scout transceiver,
and the commensurate limitations of independent claim 12 (both
limitations), and independent claim 21 (the latter limitation). (App. Br. 12-
27.)
Appellant submits that "'[i]sochronous' is a characteristic of data
transmissions in which corresponding significant instants of two or more
sequential signals have a constant phase relationship," citing "Federal
Standard 1037C in support ofMIL-STD-188." (App. Br. 23.) We apply this
definition for purposes of this Appeal.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant's
arguments, and adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 3-17);
and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in
response to Appellant's Appeal Brief (Ans. 18-25), and concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner.
(filed Nov. 29, 2017); the Final Office Action (mailed Oct. 6, 2016); and the
Examiner's Answer (mailed Oct. 3, 2017) for the respective details.
4
Appeal2018-001490
Application 13/770,870
With respect to the independent claim limitations at issue, the
Examiner relies on the disclosure of Howell of eyeglasses equipped with a
digital still or video camera with a USB connection to a wireless transceiver
allowing communication, for example, between policemen and their base
station. (Final Act. 3--4; Howell Abstract, Figs. 8E, 15, 9:17-19, 38--40,
17:51-53, 18: 38--44, 29: 15-17, 64---67 .) The Examiner also relies on the
disclosure of Strandwitz of a digital video camera in isochronous wireless
real-time video communication with a base station. (Final Act. 4--5;
Strandwitz Fig. 2, 5:4--8, 8:9-13, 13:8-16, 36-38.) The Examiner further
relies on the disclosure of Smith, in a discussion of prior art background, of
a digital camera in communication with a computer via an isochronous USB
cable. (Final Act. 5; Smith Fig. 1, 1: 16-23.)
Appellant argues Howell does not produce video images, but rather is
confined to non-isochronous still images. (App. Br. 24.) We disagree.
Howell specifically teaches use of a motion video camera. (Howell 17: 51,
29:64---66.) Appellant further argues that, in Strandwitz, "the link between
the camera and the processor is certainly not isochronous" - referring to the
"local camera 130" and the "processor 11 O" of Figure 2 of Strandwitz.
(App. Br. 24--25.) However, the Examiner relies on the camera/processor
combination, referred to in Strandwitz as a "wireless camera device," as
teaching transmission of isochronous video to other devices. (Final Act. 4--
5; Ans. 19, 21-22; Strandwitz Figs. 1, 2, 5:4--8, 8:9-13.)
Appellant also argues, with respect to Smith:
[ A ]s stated in Smith, a camera may use an isochronous
communication channel of a bus to communicate with a
computer does not teach the claimed recitations here, namely,
the use of a physical isochronous cable coupled between the
5
Appeal2018-001490
Application 13/770,870
camera and local scout transceiver to facilitate isochronous data
transmission between the camera and scout transceiver to allow
further real-time data transmission over a wireless or cellular
network.
(App. Br. 25.) This argument is unpersuasive, given that the Examiner relies
on Smith as teaching the use of an isochronous USB cable to connect a
video camera to communicate with other devices - which Appellant
admits in the above quotation is indeed disclosed in Smith. The remaining
aspects of the claims asserted by Appellant to not be taught by Smith are
found by the Examiner to be taught by the combination of the cited
references. In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA 1981)) ("[T]he test [for obviousness] is
what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to
those of ordinary skill in the art.").
In addition, Appellant argues the Examiner has "failed to specifically
point out in what manner Smith may be combined with any of Howell,
Strandwitz, and/or Horovitz to teach, suggest, or motivate one skilled in the
art to make the claimed recitations." (App. Br. 26.) However, "[t]he test for
obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be
bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference." Keller, 642
F.2d at 425; In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965,968 (CCPA 1973) ("Combining the
teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific
structures").
Finally, Appellant argues "both Howell and Strandwitz materially
teach away from the recitations in claims 1, 12 and 21," because "Howell
teaches away from real-time data transmission," and Strandwitz "teaches
away from isochronous communication between the camera and
6
Appeal2018-001490
Application 13/770,870
transceiver." (App. Br. 26.) However, as discussed above, neither of those
points are well taken. We agree with the Examiner that neither reference
teaches away for the combination relied on. (Ans. 18-19.)
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejections of
claims 1, 12, and 21.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, we sustain the Examiner's
obviousness rejections of claims 1 and 12 over Howell, Strandwitz, Smith,
and Horovitz, and of claim 21 over Howell, Strandwitz, and Smith.
In addition, we sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 2---6, 8-11,
and 13-16 over Howell, Strandwitz, Smith, and Horovitz, of claim 7 over
Howell, Strandwitz, Smith, Horovitz, and Bornstein, and of claims 22-24
over Howell, Strandwitz, and Smith, which rejections are not argued
separately with particularity. (App. Br. 27.)
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-16 and 21-24 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7