Ex Parte Laganiere et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 22, 201612900402 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 10366.0500 7722 EXAMINER ANDERSON II, JAMES M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2486 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/900,402 10/07/2010 39602 7590 12/23/2016 THE NOBLITT GROUP, PLLC Daniel J. Noblitt 8800 NORTH GAINEY CENTER DRIVE SUITE 279 SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85258 Robert Laganiere 12/23/2016 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ROBERT LAGANIERE, WILLIAM MURPHY, PASCAL BLAIS, and JASON PHILIPS Appeal 2016-001578 Application 12/900,402 Technology Center 2400 Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2016-001578 Application 12/900,402 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of claims 1,3,4, 6, 7, 9, 11—16, 18, and 20-23, which are all the claims pending in the application. Claims 2, 5, 8, 10, 17, 19, and 24 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1. A method comprising: receiving first video data at a source end, the first video data including video data relating to an event of interest captured using a video camera disposed at the source end; retrievably storing the first video data in a non-volatile memory storage device disposed at the source end; transmitting the first video data from the source end to a central server via a Wide Area Network (WAN); under the control of the central server, performing video analytics on the first video data to identify a first portion of the first video data that is representative of the event of interest, wherein the identified first portion comprises one or more frames form the first video data; and, under the control of the central server, based on a result of the video analytics, selectively deleting from the non-volatile memory storage device remaining frames of the retrievably stored first video data other than the one or more frames associated with the identified first portion, such that the identified first portion of the first video data is selectively stored in the non-volatile memory storage device. Representative Claim Prior Art Vallone Marman US 2005/0271250 A1 US 2009/0219411 A1 Dec. 8, 2005 Sept. 3, 2009 2 Appeal 2016-001578 Application 12/900,402 Examiner’s Rejections Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11—16, 18, and 20—23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vallone and Marman. ANALYSIS We adopt the findings of fact made by the Examiner in the Final Rejection and Examiner’s Answer as our own. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner for the reasons given in the Examiner’s Answer. Appellants contend the Examiner has not provided an articulated reason to combine the teachings of Vallone and Marman. App. Br. 7—11. The Examiner finds a person of ordinary skill in the art would look to the teachings of Marman to selectively store and delete video in the storage device of Vallone for the benefit of reducing the amount of storage space needed to store video data. Final Act. 8. Appellants contend the Examiner has not explained why one of ordinary skill would see a benefit in storing less data in the system of Vallone. Reply Br. 3. Appellants’ contention that one of skill in the art would not recognize the benefit of storing less data in the system of Vallone is inconsistent with Appellants’ statement in the Appeal Brief, that Vallone analyzes video data to remove uninteresting portions of video data and store only snippets. See App. Br. 12. We agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize a benefit in storing less data as taught by Marman. Appellants contend Vallone teaches selective storage, but not selective deletion. App. Br. 12—13. However, the Examiner relies on Marman to teach selective storage and deletion. Final Act. 7—8. Appellants’ 3 Appeal 2016-001578 Application 12/900,402 contention against Vallone by itself does not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s combination. Appellants contend Marman only teaches data storage and video analytics processing at the source end prior to transmitting the video data. App. Br. 13—14; Reply br. 3^4. According to Appellants, although Paragraph 25 of Marman teaches that the analysis of video data supplied by network camera 102 can be performed by the network-connected video processor, such as a video server, Appellants contend there is no suggestion that video data is transmitted to the video server via the WAN 108. App. Br. 13—14. However, Appellants’ contention that a video server that processes video data supplied by network camera 102 does not receive the video data from the camera over a network is inconsistent with the plain meaning of a video server. We disagree with Appellants’ contention that Paragraph 25 of Marman does not teach supplying video data from a network camera to a video server over a network and analyzing the video data at the video server. Appellants contend the Examiner relies on hindsight to combine the teachings of Vallone and Marman. App. Br. 17—19. The Examiner relies on Marman’s teaching of reducing the amount of stored data as the reason to use the selective storing and deleting in the storage device of Vallone. Final Act. 8. Appellants do not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s finding. Cumulative to the Examiner’s findings that the combination of Vallone and Marman teaches claim 1, we highlight Marman alone teaches the limitations of claim 1. Figure 1 of Marman shows cameras 102 that perform “receiving first video data at a source end, the first video data including video data relating 4 Appeal 2016-001578 Application 12/900,402 to an event of interest captured using a video camera disposed at the source end.” Figures 2 and 3 of Marman show “retrievably storing the first video data in a non-volatile memory storage device [206] disposed at the source end.” Figures 2 and 3 of Marman teach, “under the control of [video processing system 204], performing video analytics on the first video data to identify a first portion of the first video data that is representative of the event of interest, wherein the identified first portion comprises one or more frames form the first video data.” See also Paragraphs 28 and 29, which teach that video analytics 304 of processing system 204 detects an event within video data. Paragraphs 30-40 of Marman teach “under control of [storage management system 306 of video processing system 204], based on a result of the video analytics, selectively deleting from the non-volatile memory storage device remaining frames of the retrievably stored first video data other than the one or more frames associated with the identified first portion, such that the identified first portion of the first video data is selectively stored in the non-volatile memory storage device.” For example, Paragraph 32 teaches storage management system 306 can control data storage system 206 of source end 102 such that, based on a result of the analytics, replacing (“selectively deleting”) from the storage system 206 less important video data with new video data, while retaining video of events identified as important for long periods of time, such that the portion of video data containing the identified events is “selectively stored” in storage system 206. 5 Appeal 2016-001578 Application 12/900,402 Figures 2 and 3 of Marman do not explicitly show transmitting the first video data from the source end to a central server via a Wide Area Network to perform video analytics and selective deleting under control of the central server. However, paragraph 25 of Marman, which describes Fig. 3, teaches that although video processing is performed by video processing system 204 at source end 102, video data may be supplied from network camera 102 to a network-connected video processor, such as a video server that performs all or part of the video analysis and other video processing described throughout the rest of Marman. Thus, Paragraph 25 teaches that using a video processor on a network-connected server to perform the video processing functions taught by Marman was within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Figure 1 shows the network 106 can be a Wide Area Network 108. Appellants’ contend that Paragraph 9 of Marman suggests that the video server discussed in Paragraph 25 of Marman does not receive video data for processing or transmit video data for storage, because Paragraph 9 teaches video data is stored at the source end rather than streamed across the network to reduce bandwidth requirements. App. Br. 13—14. Appellants’ contention that Paragraph 9 is controlling on the entire disclosure of Marman is inconsistent with Paragraph 40 of Marman, which teaches the benefits of transmitting video data over network 106 to storage systems 206 of cameras 102. Further, the contention that a video server does not receive or transmit video data is inconsistent with the plain meaning of video server. Thus Marman alone teaches the limitations of claim 1. Vallone, in Figure 3 and Paragraph 33, reinforce what is already taught by Paragraph 25 of Marman, namely, that transmitting video data 6 Appeal 2016-001578 Application 12/900,402 from the source end to a server via a network to perform video analytics at the server was within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Paragraph 33 of Vallone teaches that the network can be any type of network, including a Wide Area Network. Connecting the video processing server taught by Marman and Vallone to a Wide Area Network as taught by Marman and Vallone is the combination of familiar elements according to known methods that does no more than yield the predictable result of the server receiving video via the network and performing the video processing functions taught by Marman and Vallone. See KSR Inti Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). We sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11—16, 18, and 20— 23. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11—16, 18, and 20- 23 is affirmed. 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation