Ex Parte Alexander et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2012

10007136 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEALS
BOARD
____________________

Ex parte BRUCE ALEXANDER and LIEM BAHNEMAN
____________________

Appeal 2010-008036
Application 10/007,136
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, THU A. DANG, and JAMES R. HUGHES,
Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-008036
Application 10/007,136

2
I. STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-56. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

A. INVENTION
According to Appellants, the invention generally relates to computer
software and hardware and, in particular, to processing digital video images
utilizing motion detection and subdivided video fields (Spec. 1, ll. 14-16).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary and reproduced below:

1. A method for processing image data, the method
comprising:

obtaining at least one processing zone for processing
digital data obtained from a digital capture device, wherein the
at least one processing zone corresponds to a specific geometry
that is a subdivided area represented in each frame of a stream
of video frames;

obtaining a first frame of image data corresponding to the
digital capture device that includes the at least one processing
zone as a subdivided area;

obtaining a second frame of image data corresponding to
the digital capture device that includes the same at least one
processing zone;
Appeal 2010-008036
Application 10/007,136

3
determining whether there is significant change in the
image data between the first and second frames within the same
at least one processing zone, wherein the determination of
significant change in the image data is made by evaluating
differential data corresponding to an adjustable parameter in the
image data that is represented within a geometry of the same at
least one processing zone; and

processing an event only if a significant change in the
image data is determined between the first and second frames
within the same at least one processing zone, wherein
processing the event includes storing the image data in the same
at least one processing zone to a mass storage only if significant
change in the image data is determined and excluding image
data in the same or different at least one processing zone from
being stored to the mass storage if no significant change in the
image data is determined.

C. REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Olson US 7,023,469 Bl Apr. 04, 2006
(filed Apr. 15, 1999)

Claims 1, 2, 4-22, 24-39, and 41-56 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Olson.
Claims 3, 23, and 40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Olson.

II. ISSUE
Has the Examiner erred in finding that Olson teaches “determining
whether there is significant change in the image data between the first and
Appeal 2010-008036
Application 10/007,136

4
second frames within the same at least one processing zone” wherein the
determination is made “by evaluating differential data corresponding to an
adjustable parameter,” “processing an event only if a significant change in
the image data is determined between first and second frames” and “storing
the image data … only if significant change in the image data is determined
and excluding image data … if no significant change in the image data is
determined” (claim 1, emphasis added).

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Olson
1. Olson’s Figure 5 is reproduced below:

Figure 5 shows a diagrammatic view of a video image of a monitored
area which was obtained from a camera unit, the image comprising a
hallway 71 and alcove 72 that has been saved as a reference image
(col. 5, ll. 60-66).
2. Olson’s Figure 6 is reproduced below:
Appeal 2010-008036
Application 10/007,136

5

Figure 6 shows the appearance of an object 86 in the monitored area,
wherein the object 86 is a person who entered the hallway 71 at the far
end and then walked down the length of the hallway 71 to the alcove
72 (col. 5, l. 66 to col. 6, l. 5).
3. During the time that the person 86 was in the field of view of the
camera unit, the camera unit generates a succession of video images
as the person walked down the hall 71, and each of the video images
in this succession of images was processed relative to the reference
image of Fig. 5 and the system determines for each image a bounding
box around the change region which corresponds to the person 86
(col. 6, ll. 11-19).
4. For each detected object such as the person 86, an image processing
section determines the Cartesian coordinates within each image of the
midpoint of the lower side of the bounding box for that detected
object, and the information is saved on the hard disk drive (col. 6, ll.
38-42).
Appeal 2010-008036
Application 10/007,136

6
IV. ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 4-22, 24-39, and 41-56
As to independent claim 1, Appellants contends that “Olson does not
teach or suggest ‘evaluating differential data corresponding to an adjustable
parameter’” (App. Br. 12), “Olson does not teach a method for ‘processing
an event only if a significant change in the image data is determined between
the first and second frames within the same at least one processing zone”
(App. Br. 17), and that “Olson fails to teach or suggest the claim elements of
‘excluding image data in the same or different at least one processing zone
from being stored to the mass storage if no significant change in the image
data is determined’” (App. Br 18, emphasis omitted).
However, the Examiner finds that Olson discloses “at least one
processing zone [71, 72] corresponds to a specific geometry” because
“Hallway has a specific geometry,” wherein “the subdivided area is in each
frame” (Ans. 3); that Olson discloses “second frame as shown in figure 6”
(Ans. 4); and thus Olson discloses “determining whether there is significant
change in the image data between the first and second frames” because
Olson “compares subsequent images to the reference image” (id.). The
Examiner further finds that “a setting time is an adjustable parameter” and
thus finds that “Olson discloses wherein the determination of significant
change is made evaluating differential data…. corresponding to an
adjustable parameter” (Ans. 11). The Examiner then finds that Olson
discloses storing image data “only if significant change in the image data is
determined” because Olson stores “the result of the comparison of the
images in figures 5 and 6” whereby “the person entered the hallway is the
change” (Ans. 12). We find no error in the Examiner’s findings.
Appeal 2010-008036
Application 10/007,136

7
In particular, Olson discloses a reference image of a monitored area
comprising a hallway and an alcove (FF 1), and subsequent images of the
monitored area with the appearance of an object therein (FF 2). We find that
Olson’s image data of the reference image comprises “a first frame” of
image data that includes a processing zone (monitored area) as a subdivided
area and find that Olson’s image data of the subsequent images comprises “a
second frame” that includes the same processing zone (monitored area) as
required by claim 1.
Further, Olson discloses that each of the subsequent images (second
frame) is processed relative to the reference image (first frame) and the
system determines for each image a bounding box around the change region
(FF 3). That is, Olson discloses determining a change between the first
frame and the second frame of the monitored area/processing zone. Thus,
we find Olson to disclose “determining whether there is significant change
in the image data between the first and second frames within the same at
least one processing zone” as required by claim 1.
We also find no error in the Examiner’s finding that “a setting time is
an adjustable parameter” (Ans. 11). Since Olson discloses evaluating the
differential data between the first and second frames for a certain set time
(FF 3), we find no error with the Examiner’s finding that “Olson discloses
wherein the determination of significant change is made evaluating
differential data … corresponding to an adjustable parameter” (Ans. 11).
Olson also teaches that for each detected object, i.e. change to the
monitored area, a bounding box is determined and the information is saved
on a hard disk drive (FF 4). That is, Olson discloses storing image data in
the processing zone for only the change set forth in the determined bounding
Appeal 2010-008036
Application 10/007,136

8
box and not storing image data if there is no change (no bounding box).
Thus, we find Olson also discloses “storing the image data … only if
significant change in the image data is determined and excluding image data
… if no significant change in the image data is determined” as required by
claim 1.
Accordingly, for the above reasons, we affirm the rejection of claim 1
over Olson.
As for independent claim 21, although the Examiner finds that Olson
discloses a system “configured with a monitoring device … 17” and a
“central processing server … 17 and 27” (Ans. 14), Appellants merely list
the claim language, contend that the Examiner fails “to state how the Olson
reference discloses” each of these claim elements, and then contends that
“Claim 21 recite[s] a multi-tiered computer system” (App. Br. 21).
However, as to Appellants’ argument that “claim 21 recite[s] a multi-
tiered system”(id.), such argument is not commensurate with the scope of
the recited language of claim 21.
Further, a statement which merely points out what a claim recites will
not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). See also In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470
(Fed. Cir. 1997); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and
Ex parte Belinne, No. 2009-004693, 2009 WL 2477843, at *3-4 (BPAI Aug.
10, 2009) (informative).
Accordingly, Appellants have shown no error with the Examiner’s
findings as to the teachings of Olson in view of independent claims 21. As
for independent claim 38 and dependent claims 2, 4-20, 22, 24-37, 39, and
41-56 respectively depending from claims 1, 21, and 38, Appellants do not
Appeal 2010-008036
Application 10/007,136

9
provide arguments separate from those for claim 1 (App. Br. 22).
Accordingly, we also find no error with the Examiner’s rejection of claims
2, 4-22, 24-39, and 41-56 over Olson.
We note that, as to claims 5-8, 25-28, and 41-44, Appellants also point
out what the claims recite and then “request that the rejection … be
overturned” (App. Br. 22-24). However, as discussed above, a statement
which merely points out what the claims recite will not be considered an
argument for separate patentability of the claims.
Claims 3, 23, 40
As for claims 3, 23, and 40, Appellants contend that “‘wherein the
specific geometry of the processing zone is characterized by a circle’ is not
obvious in light of the cited reference as common knowledge in the art”
(App. Br. 26). However, the language “characterized by a circle” does not
change the functionality of or provide any additional function to the claimed
step of “obtaining at least one processing zone” and does not limit how the
processing zone/data is obtained. Rather, this language is merely describing
the processing zone/data without being functionally related to the claimed
obtaining step.
When descriptive material is not functionally related to the claimed
medium, the descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from the
prior art in terms of patentability. See In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed.
Cir. 2004) and In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385 (Fed. Circ. 1983). That is,
the descriptive material will not be given patentable weight absent a new and
unobvious functional relationship between the descriptive material and the
medium. See In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1582-1583 (Fed. Cir. 1994); Ngai,
367 F.3d at 1339 (nonfunctional descriptive material cannot render
Appeal 2010-008036
Application 10/007,136

10
nonobvious an invention that would have otherwise been obvious). See also
Ex parte Mathias, 84 USPQ2d 1276 (BPAI 2005) (nonprecedential), aff'd,
191 Fed. Appx. 959 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
We find no error in the Examiner’s finding that Olson discloses “at
least one processing zone [71, 72] corresponds to a specific geometry”
because “Hallway has a specific geometry” (Ans. 3). Further, we find that
“characterized by a circle” (claim 1) cannot render nonobvious Appellants’
invention that would have otherwise been obvious over Olsen. Accordingly,
we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 23, and 40 as
obvious over Olson.

V. CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
claims 1, 2, 4-22, 24-39, and 41-56 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
and that claims 3, 23, and 40 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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)(iv).

AFFIRMED

peb