Ex Parte Ackermann et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 2, 2019

13200898 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 2, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/200,898 10/04/2011 Mitch Ackermann
87059 7590 01/04/2019
Cantor Colburn LLP - Carrier
20 Church Street, 22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
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.
59249US01 (U300314US) 4607
EXAMINER
DANG,HUNGQ
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2484
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/04/2019 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 MITCH ACKERMANN, JEFFRY RATCLIFF,
and JEREMY SCHWARTZ
Appeal2018-005225
Application 13/200,898
Technology Center 2400
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
JON M. JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judges.
KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1, and 3-22, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is UTC Fire and Security
Corporation (Br. 1 ).
Appeal2018-005225
Application 13/200,898
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' invention relates to a system and method for merging
timelines from diverse sources of recorded video (Spec. 11 ). Claim 1 is
illustrative of the invention and reads as follows:
1. A video recording and playback network comprising:
a video source;
a plurality of recorders which simultaneously record, in
parallel, the same video from the video source, wherein the
plurality of recorders includes a first recorder storing a first
time interval of video at a first frame rate and a second recorder
storing a second time interval of video at a second frame rate,
wherein the first time interval is less than the second time
interval and the first frame rate is greater than the second frame
rate;
a local server which generates a playlist comprising one
or more ordered video segments which together cover a desired
time range of the video recorded from the video source, said
play list associating one of the plurality of recorders with each
video segment; and
a client device which plays back the desired time range
of the recorded video according to the play list by streaming
each video segment, in sequence, from the associated recorder;
wherein the local server generates the playlist by
selecting the highest resolution and/or frame rate video
available from any of the plurality of recorders at each time
over the desired time range, the playlist identifying recorders
having the highest resolution and/or frame rate video available.
The Examiner's Rejections
Claims 1, 3-7, 10, 11, 14, and 16-22 are rejected under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Takahashi (US 2008/0228848
A 1; Sept. 18, 2008 (hereinafter "Takahashi")), Brannon, Jr. et al. (US
2007/0024706 Al; Feb. 1, 2007 (hereinafter "Brannon")), Nishi et al. (US
2
Appeal2018-005225
Application 13/200,898
2007/0292110 Al; Dec. 20, 2007 (hereinafter "Nishi")), and Pantos et al.
(US 2011/0138020 Al; June 9, 2011 (hereinafter "Pantos")).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Takahashi, Brannon, Nishi, and Pantos as applied to
claims 1, 3-7, 10, 11, 14, and 16-22 above, and further in view of Y ahata et
al. (US 2009/0097821 Al; Apr. 16, 2009 (hereinafter "Yahata")).
Claim 12 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Takahashi, Brannon, Nishi, and Pantos as applied to
claims 1, 3-7, 10, 11, 14, and 16-22 above, and further in view of Koudo et
al. (US 2009/0067535 Al; Mar. 12, 2009 (hereinafter "Koudo")).
Claim 13 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Takahashi, Brannon, Nishi, Pantos, and Koudo as applied
to claims 1, 3-7, 10, 12, 14, and 16-22 above, and further in view of
Halbraich et al. (US 2009/0010277 Al; Jan. 8, 2009 (hereinafter
"Halbraich") ).
Claim 15 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Takahashi, Brannon, Nishi, and Pantos as applied to
claims 1, 3-7, 10, 11, 14, and 16-22 above, and further in view of Takahashi
et al. (US 2010/0086282 Al; Apr. 8, 2010 (hereinafter "Takahashi '282")).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments in the Appeal Brief (see Br. 5-17) and are not persuaded the
Examiner has erred. Unless otherwise noted, we adopt as our own the
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Office Action from
which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2-24) and in the Examiner's Answer
3
Appeal2018-005225
Application 13/200,898
(Ans. 24--28). For emphasis, we address and highlight specific arguments as
presented in the Appeal Brief.
Appellants contend:
Brannon stores video at different frame rates because the video
sources provide the video at different frame rates. Takahashi, by
contrast, has a single source signal. ... As there is a single source of
video in Takahashi, each recorder will record video at the same frame
rate. The proposal to modify Takahashi to store video at multiple
frame rates (as disclosed in Brannon) will not function in Takahashi
as Takahashi does not provide the same video simultaneously at
multiple frame rates. As there is no way to implement the features of
Brannon in Takahashi, it would not have been obvious to a person
having ordinary skill in the art to modify Takahashi to include storing
video at different frame rates as taught by Brannon.
Br. 6-7 (hereinafter "combinability" contentions).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' combinability contentions. As
found by the Examiner:
Brannon teaches receiving multiple video sources at and by a
playback device, not at and by a storage device. Takahashi teaches
recording same video content from a single video source by multiple
storage devices, but providing multiple video sources, each of which
is recorded on a corresponding storage device, to a playback device
for playback. As such, when incorporating the teachings of Brannon
into Takahashi, one skilled in the art would have recognized that,
since the same content is recorded by different recorders, which in
general have different recording capabilities and/or features, the
contents stored on these recorders in general do not necessarily have
the same resolution and/or frame rate. In other words, there is no
guarantee that the contents on these recorders have the same
resolution and/or frame rate. Therefore at playback time, with the
playback method taught by Brannon being incorporated, a playback
device in Takahashi would receive the video contents from the
multiple recorders (not from the single video source, which is the
broadcast signal in Takahashi) so that the content is played back at an
4
Appeal2018-005225
Application 13/200,898
optimal frame rates and/or resolution depending on the network and
resource constraints.
Ans. 25 ( emphasis omitted).
We agree with the Examiner findings for combinability because all of
the features of the secondary reference need not be bodily incorporated into
the primary reference. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA 1981); In
re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Furthermore,
the artisan is not compelled to blindly follow the teaching of one prior art
reference over the other without the exercise of independent judgment. See
Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d 881, 889 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Appellants did not rebut the Examiner's findings in a Reply Brief.
Regarding independent claims 10, 16, and 20, Appellants raised
arguments similar to that of claim 1 (Br. 8-16), we find that the Examiner
has rebutted in the Answer those arguments by a preponderance of the
evidence. Therefore, we adopt the Examiner's findings and underlying
reasoning, which are incorporated herein by reference.
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting the dependent claims
based on arguments similar to those provided for their respective base
claims. For the reasons described above, these arguments do not persuade
us that the Examiner erred in rejecting the remaining claims.
Accordingly, we conclude the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims
1, and 3-22 under§ 103.
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, and 3-22.
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).
5
Appeal2018-005225
Application 13/200,898
AFFIRMED
6