Federal Circuit disposition — 19-1895

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________

IN RE: KAREN CHAPMAN,
Appellant
______________________

2019-1895
______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 14/675,320.
______________________

Decided: May 11, 2020
______________________

C
LIFFORD JAY MASS, Ladas & Parry LLP, New York,
NY, for appellant.

KAKOLI CAPRIHAN, Office of the Solicitor, United States
Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, for appellee
Andrei Iancu. Also represented by T
HOMAS W. KRAUSE,
FARHEENA YASMEEN RASHEED, PETER JOHN SAWERT.
______________________

Before NEWMAN, LOURIE, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
LOURIE, Circuit Judge.
Karen Chapman appeals from the decision of the
United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial
and Appeal Board (“the Board”) affirming the examiner’s
rejection of all pending claims of U.S. Patent Application
Case: 19-1895 Document: 35 Page: 1 Filed: 05/11/2020

IN RE: CHAPMAN
2
14/675,320 (“the ’320 application”). Ex parte Chapman ̧
No. 2018-007101 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 15, 2019) (“Decision”). For
the reasons stated below, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
Chapman applied for a patent on methods and systems
for streaming live events. According to the specification of
the ’320 application, a fixed video camera or multiple fixed-
position cameras are used to capture images from a single
perspective. The system allows the user to view the images
or video and manipulate them (i.e., by zooming in and out
and panning the camera).
In this appeal, the parties argue about the three inde-
pendent claims in the application, claims 1, 9, and 21.
Claim 1 recites “[a] method for viewing an event which con-
sists essentially of receiving a stream of images by a re-
ceiver comprising a display screen, wherein the stream of
images is captured by” either a “single camera” with a
“fixed perspective at a wide angle” or a “plurality of cam-
eras,” which also provide a “single fixed perspective at a
wide angle.” J.A. 284. A “receiver” is “connected to a sep-
arate touchplate, wherein said touchplate is adapted to
control . . . and to move” the viewed images or video without
“changing the fixed perspective” of the camera feed. Id.
Claim 9 recites a “system” for viewing an event consisting
essentially of a camera and a receiver connected to a touch-
plate operating in the manner as described in claim 1.
J.A. 285. Claim 21 recites a “method” similar to claim 1,
but with the transitional phrase “comprising” instead of
“consisting essentially of.” J.A. 286.
The examiner rejected these independent claims as ob-
vious over Choi
1
in view of Aman
2
and Franko.
3
Choi

1
U.S. Patent App. Pub. 2011/0265118.
2
U.S. Patent App. Pub. 2007/0279494.
3
U.S. Patent App. Pub. 2008/0136839.
Case: 19-1895 Document: 35 Page: 2 Filed: 05/11/2020

IN RE: CHAPMAN
3
teaches an apparatus to display streamed video, which can
include an external camera for capturing images. Choi
¶ 199. Choi’s apparatus includes a remote controller with
a touchpad that can control the images on the display. Id.
at ¶ 281. Aman teaches capturing a stream of images from
a single, fixed perspective at a wide angle to produce a dis-
play having a 3D appearance. Aman ¶ 41. Franko teaches
moving video images on a display to pan across the image
without altering a fixed perspective. Franko ¶ 40. As rel-
evant here, in analyzing claims 1 and 9, the examiner as-
signed no patentable weight to the “consisting essentially
of” transitional phrase because it is part of the preambles
in claims 1 and 9.
Chapman appealed to the Board, and the Board agreed
with the examiner’s factfinding regarding the references,
explaining that a skilled artisan would have been moti-
vated to combine the teachings of the references using
known methods and yielding predictable results. Decision,
slip op. at 8. The Board deviated, however, from the exam-
iner’s analysis of the “consisting essentially of” language of
claims 1 and 9. According to the Board, the “consisting es-
sentially of” language limits the scope of the claims to spec-
ified materials or steps and those that do not materially
affect the basic and novel properties of the invention.
Chapman argued that the basic and novel property of the
invention is the use of a camera or cameras that provide
images to a viewer from a single, fixed perspective only to
replicate the experience of a viewer when he or she attends
a live performance in person. Id. at 10. But the Board
found this property to be merely “a generalized intended
benefit of the invention” and not sufficiently clear or defi-
nite in scope to limit the claims. Id. The Board further
found that, even if the basic and novel property were to be
considered, Aman disclosed it by teaching filming a sport-
ing event from a single, fixed perspective that would stim-
ulate the experience of viewing the event in person from a
vantage point above the event. Id. at 10–11.
Case: 19-1895 Document: 35 Page: 3 Filed: 05/11/2020

IN RE: CHAPMAN
4
Chapman appealed. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(a).
DISCUSSION
We review the Board’s legal determinations de novo, In
re Elsner, 381 F.3d 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 2004), and its fact
findings for substantial evidence, In re Gartside, 203 F.3d
1305, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2000). A finding is supported by sub-
stantial evidence if a reasonable mind might accept the ev-
idence as sufficient to support the finding. Consol. Edison
Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938).
Chapman argues that the Board erred in its interpre-
tation of the claim language and in its overall obviousness
analysis. Specifically, contrary to the Board’s opinion,
Chapman argues that the preambles are limiting and
should be construed to limit the invention to streaming en-
tire “events,” that the basic and novel property of the in-
vention narrows the prior art that is relevant to the claims,
that the Board relied on a different ground of rejection than
the examiner, and that the claims would not have been ob-
vious under either the Board’s or the examiner’s analysis.
We disagree. As a preliminary matter, Chapman did
not argue that the term “event” required construction, so
this argument is waived on appeal. See In re Baxter Int’l,
Inc., 678 F.3d 1357, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (first citing In re
DBC, 545 F.3d 1373, 1379–80 (Fed. Cir. 2008); then citing
In re Watts, 354 F.3d 1362, 1367–68 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).
Chapman’s argument that the Board relied on a different
ground of rejection than the examiner is also waived be-
cause Chapman failed to raise it below. See 37 C.F.R. §
41.50(c) (2011) (requiring petitioners to raise the Board’s
failure to designate a new ground of rejection in a timely
request for rehearing).
On appeal, Chapman provides a new formulation of the
basic and novel properties of the invention, arguing that
there are two: (1) provision of a stream of images of an
Case: 19-1895 Document: 35 Page: 4 Filed: 05/11/2020

IN RE: CHAPMAN
5
event to a viewer from a single, fixed perspective and to
enable a viewer to select what images from the single, fixed
perspective to display on a display screen, and (2) the elim-
ination of the need for multiple camera complexity in so
doing. This formulation of the basic and novel properties
appears to be simply a statement of the general, intended
benefit of the invention. But even if we were to read the
statement as limiting the scope of the claims, the Board
correctly found that Aman teaches simulating the experi-
ence of viewing an event from an overhead vantage point,
which a person of skill in the art would have understood
teaches using one or more fixed cameras filming from a
fixed, overhead view. Aman ¶ 78.
Chapman also challenges the Board’s obviousness con-
clusion as lacking substantial evidence, but we disagree.
Choi, Aman, and Franko teach the display monitor, a cam-
era, the action of capturing images from a fixed perspec-
tive, and a separate touchplate. Aman teaches using a
fixed overhead view for filming sporting events, and a per-
son of skill would have understood that statement to teach
that a single fixed camera, as well as multiple fixed cam-
eras, could be used to film such events. To the extent Chap-
man now argues teaching away, Aman does not teach away
from using wide-angle lenses, and the Board’s factfinding
is entitled to deference.
C
ONCLUSION
We have considered Chapman’s remaining arguments
but find them unpersuasive. Accordingly, the decision of
the Board is affirmed.
AFFIRMED
Case: 19-1895 Document: 35 Page: 5 Filed: 05/11/2020