2019005010 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 27, 2020)

Fox Sports Productions, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 27, 2020

2019005010 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 27, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 14/207,998 03/13/2014 Michael Davies FEG1910US2 8829 78537 7590 11/27/2020 Cantor Colburn LLP - Fox Entertainment Group 20 Church Street 22nd Floor Hartford, CT 06103 EXAMINER LIMA, FABIO S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2486 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/27/2020 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): usptopatentmail@cantorcolburn.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _____________ Ex parte MICHAEL DAVIES 1 _____________ Appeal 2019-005010 Application 14/207,998 Technology Center 2400 ______________ Before TERRY J. OWENS, B. WILLIAM BAUMEISTER, and JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of Claims 1–27. Appeal Br. 2. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appeal Brief identifies Fox Sports Productions, Inc., as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2019-005010 Application 14/207,998 2 INVENTION The invention is directed to a system and method for adjusting an image horizon of a vehicle-mounted camera. See Abstract; Claim 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the invention. 1. A method for adjusting a broadcast image for a vehicle mounted camera, comprising: providing a camera mounted in a vehicle, the camera configured [to] provide an image for a broadcast; providing at least one sensor in said vehicle, the sensor detecting a change in tilt of said vehicle upon entry of the vehicle into a high banked turn on a racetrack; and automatically adjusting an image horizon and zoom in response to said detected change in tilt of said vehicle. PRIOR ART Name2 Reference Date Hayashigawa US 5,865,624 Feb. 2, 1999 Limor US 2002/0090217 A1 July 11, 2002 Yoshimatsu US 2006/0197843 A1 Sep. 7, 2006 Tieman US 2011/0181728 A1 July 28, 2011 Davies US 2013/0033605 A1 Feb. 7, 2013 2 All citations herein to the references are by reference to the first named inventor/author only. Appeal 2019-005010 Application 14/207,998 3 REJECTIONS3 AT ISSUE4 1. Claims 7–9, 15–17, and 25–27 stand provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1, 7, and 8, of copending Application No. 13/567,323 (Davies ’605). Final Act. 7–9. 2. Claims 1–6, 10–14, and 18–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Limor, Hayashigawa, and Yoshimatsu. Final Act. 10–14. 3. Claims 7–9, 15–17, 21, 22, and 25–27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Limor, Hayashigawa, Yoshimatsu, and Davies. Final Act. 14–17. 4. Claims 23 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Limor, Hayashigawa, Yoshimatsu, Davies, and Tieman. Final Act. 17–18. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1–27 in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred. We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments which Appellant could have made but chose not to make in 3 The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. Final Act 2. 4 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed December 26, 2018, the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed June 10, 2019, the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed February 22, 2018, the Examiner’s Answer mailed April 10, 2019, and the Specification (“Spec.”) filed March 13, 2014. Appeal 2019-005010 Application 14/207,998 4 the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). We provide the following explanation to highlight and address specific arguments and findings primarily for emphasis. We consider Appellant’s arguments as they are presented in the Appeal Brief and the Reply Brief. CLAIMS 7–9, 15–17, AND 25–27: NONSTATUTORY OBVIOUSNESS-TYPE DOUBLE PATENTING. Claims 7–9, 15–17, and 25–27 stand rejected under the judicial doctrine of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1, 7, and 8, of co-pending Application No. 13/567,323 (Davies ’605). Final Act. 6–7. A Notice of Allowance and Issue Fee Due was mailed October 26, 2020. Therefore, the rejection is non- provisional. We note that the subsequent prosecution does not refer to this ground of rejection. Because Appellant presents no arguments directed to this rejection, we affirm it summarily. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.31(c) (“An appeal, when taken, is presumed to be taken from the rejection of all claims under rejection unless cancelled by an amendment filed by the applicant and entered by the Office.”); 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv) (“[A]ny arguments or authorities not included in the appeal brief will be refused consideration by the Board for purposes of the present appeal.”); MPEP § 1205.02 (9th ed. March 2014) (“[T]he Board may summarily sustain any grounds of rejections not argued.”). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR l.32l(c) or 1.32 l(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this Appeal 2019-005010 Application 14/207,998 5 application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. Final Act. 7. Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. Id. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b). Id. CLAIMS 1–6, 10–14, AND 18–20: OBVIOUSNESS OVER LIMOR, HAYASHIGAWA, AND YOSHIMATSU. Claim 1 recites, inter alia: providing a camera mounted in a vehicle, the camera configured [to] provide an image for a broadcast; providing at least one sensor in said vehicle, the sensor detecting a change in tilt of said vehicle upon entry of the vehicle into a high banked turn on a racetrack; and automatically adjusting an image horizon and zoom in response to said detected change in tilt of said vehicle. Appeal Br. 22. The Examiner finds Limor teaches a camera mounted in a vehicle. Final Act. 10 (citing Limor, ¶ 24; Fig. 3). The Examiner finds Limor teaches “providing at least one sensor in said vehicle, the sensor detecting a change in tilt of said vehicle.” Id. The Examiner further finds Limor teaches “automatically adjusting an image horizon.” Id. (citing Limor, ¶ 24; Fig. 6). The Examiner further finds Limor teaches “automatically adjusting an image zoom in response to said detected change in tilt of said vehicle.” Id. (citing Limor, ¶ 35). The Examiner finds Limor fails to teach “upon entry of the vehicle into a high banked turn on a racetrack,” but finds Hayashigawa discloses a 6-axis accelerometer that teaches this limitation. Id. Appeal 2019-005010 Application 14/207,998 6 Appellant contends Limor teaches two, different camera types: a vehicle-mounted camera and a track-mounted camera external to the vehicle. Appeal Br. 14. Appellant argues the Examiner improperly attributes disclosure of “tilt,” “pan,” and “zoom,” which relate to the track-mounted camera, to operation of the vehicle-mounted camera, for which there is no written disclosure. Appeal Br. 15. Appellant contends, moreover, even should the prior art suggest changing “tilt,” “pan,” or “zoom,” there is no suggestion to make the specifically claimed change, i.e., adjusting an image horizon. Appeal Br. 14. In response to Appellant’s argument that Limor fails to teach adjusting the vehicle-mounted camera, the Examiner finds the features upon which Appellant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Ans. 4. The Examiner finds Limor does not teach adjusting the image of a vehicle- mounted camera, but finds that while Claim 1 recites, “automatically adjusting an image horizon and zoom,” Claim 1 does not specify that the image horizon from the vehicle-mounted camera is adjusted. Id. Therefore, the Examiner finds the claim reads on adjusting the horizon and zoom of any image, such as, e.g., an image provided by Limor’s track-mounted camera. Id. Appellant contends the claims recite only a vehicle-mounted camera and images therefrom. Reply Br. 2. Appellant argues that to a person of ordinary skill, it would be apparent that the claimed image horizon and image zoom are both aspects of the image provided by the vehicle-mounted camera. Id. We agree with Appellant, contra the Examiner, the claimed “image horizon” must relate to the image provided by the claimed vehicle-mounted Appeal 2019-005010 Application 14/207,998 7 camera. Independent Claims 10 and 18 contain commensurate recitations. The Examiner does not apply the remaining art to teach the disputed limitations. See Ans. 4–5. In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of independent Claims 1, 10, or 18 and of claims dependent therefrom. CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 7–9, 15– 17, 25–27 Non-statutory double patenting 7–9, 15–17, 25–27 1–6, 10– 14, 18–20 103 Limor, Hayashigawa, Yoshimatsu 1–6, 10–14, 18–20 7–9, 15– 17, 21, 22, 25–27 103 Limor, Hayashigawa, Yoshimatsu, Davies 7–9, 15–17, 21, 22, 25– 27 23, 24 103 Limor, Hayashigawa, Yoshimatsu, Davies, Tieman 23, 24 Overall 7–9, 15–17, 25–27 1–6, 10–15, 18–24 AFFIRMED-IN-PART 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).