Ex Parte Heier et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 14, 2017

13293782 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 14, 2017)

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.
13/293,782 11/10/2011 Kurt Heier 10171-172US1 4408
75158 7590 08/16/2017
Verint Systems, Inc.
Meunier Carlin & Curfman, LLC
999 Peachtree Street NE
Suite 1300
Atlanta, GA 30309
EXAMINER
BELAI, NAOD W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2481
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/16/2017 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):
laaronson@mcciplaw.com
KCarroll@mcciplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KURT HEIER and ERAN WACHMAN
Appeal 2017-001199
Application 13/293,7821
Technology Center 2400
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, ERIC B. CHEN, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Technology
The application relates to video cameras “for recording a scene
encompassing a transaction, such as a point-of-sale.” Spec. Abstract.
Illustrative Claim
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below with the limitations at
issue emphasized:
1 Appellants state the real party in interest is Verint Systems, Inc. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-001199
Application 13/293,782
1. A method for recording a scene encompassing a transaction,
the method comprising:
recording the scene to a data storage system using a first
video camera capable of capturing protected data associated with
the transaction;
while recording the scene using the first video camera,
responsive to receiving a first timing trigger, continuing the
recording of the scene to the data storage system using a second
video camera not capable of capturing the protected data; and
while recording the scene using the second, different video
camera, responsive to receiving a second timing trigger,
continuing the recording of the scene to the data storage system
using the first video camera;
wherein the first timing trigger and the second timing
trigger are initiated based on at least one event associated with
the transaction; and
wherein further, audio detection is employed to determine
whether the protected data is about to be presented.
Rejection
Claims 1—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Francois (US 2003/0048202 Al; Mar. 13, 2003), Hage (US 2004/0135885
Al; July 15, 2004), Monroe et al. (US 2007/0107029 Al; May 10, 2007),
and Ishino (US 2005/0128314 Al; June 16, 2005). Final Act. 5.
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding Ishino teaches or suggests “audio
detection is employed to determine whether the protected data is about to be
presented,” as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
All of the independent claims (1,9, and 17) recite “audio detection is
employed to determine whether the protected data is about to be presented.”
The Examiner finds Ishino teaches or suggests this limitation. Final
Act. 8. The Examiner and Appellants agree that Ishino teaches video
2
Appeal 2017-001199
Application 13/293,782
cameras switching from a low resolution mode to a high resolution mode “if
a sound level exceeds a predetermined value,” such as in the event of a
“traffic accident.” Ishino 64—66, Fig. 5; Br. 7—8.
We agree with Appellants, however, that Ishino’s audio detection is
not “employed to determine whether the protected data is about to be
presented.” Br. 8—10. We are not persuaded by the Examiner’s conclusion
that “the ‘protected data is about to be presented’ is an intended purpose
of the ‘audio detection’, [and] consequently does not impose any limitation
on the structure, material or acts being performed.” Ans. 13. Although not
written as a traditional method step in claim 1, we construe this limitation in
the same way we would the method step “determining, by employing audio
detection, whether the protected data is about to be presented,” in which the
“determining” is a mandatory step rather than merely an intended use.2
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1,
9, and 17, and their dependent claims 2—8, 10-16, and 18—20.
DECISION
For the reasons above, we reverse the decision rejecting claims 1—20.
REVERSED
2 In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner may wish to consider
whether independent claim 9 is indefinite for mixing a system claim with
method steps (e.g., “while recording” and “audio detection is employed”).
See MPEP § 2173.05(p)(II); In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent
Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
3