Ex Parte MDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 27, 201713209078 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2017) 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. 13/209,078 08/12/2011 Deepak Sundar M H0029549 4874/114148 9337 92556 7590 HONEYWELL/HUSCH Patent Services 115 Tabor Road P.O.Box 377 MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950 03/29/2017 EXAMINER CHOWDHURY, NIGAR ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2484 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/29/2017 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): patentservices-us @ honey well, com amy. hammer @ hu schblackwell .com pto-chi@huschblackwell.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SUNDAR M. DEEPAK Appeal 2014-8609 Application 13/209,078 Technology Center 2400 Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, RAMA G. ELLURU, and JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges. ELLURU, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF CASE1 Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 9—15 and 18—25, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. Claims 1—8 have been cancelled, and the Appellant elected not to Appeal the rejection of claims 16—17. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Our Decision makes reference to Appellant’s Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed June 2, 2014) and Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed April 2, 2014), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed May 22, 2014) and Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed January 31, 2014). Appeal 2014-008609 Application 13/209,078 INVENTION Appellant’s invention is directed generally to video surveillance, and more particularly, for “creating, displaying, and playing video clips for improved investigations and incident management in video surveillance and where ever video data streams are used for evidentiary purposes.” Spec. 11. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 9. 9. A method comprising: displaying and playing an incident video data stream from a camera in a primary video panel on a viewing screen; and simultaneously displaying and playing at least one playback session from the camera in at least one secondary video panel on the viewing screen, wherein the at least one playback session corresponds to at least one marked key moment in the incident video data stream, and wherein the at least one playback session is played in the at least one secondary video panel at a time corresponding to when the at least one marked key moment in the incident video data stream is being play[ed] in the primary video panel. REFERENCES Minasyan et al. (“Minasyan”) US 2010/0245584 A1 Drive et al. (“Drive”) US 2010/0157050 Al Sept. 30, 2010 June 24, 2010 REJECTION Claims 9-15 and 18—25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Minasyan and Drive. Final Act. 4—11. 2 Appeal 2014-008609 Application 13/209,078 ISSUES The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 9—15 and 18—25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Minaysyan and Drive turns on whether the combination of Minasyan and Drive teaches or suggests displaying and playing an incident video data stream from a camera in a primary video panel on a viewing screen; and simultaneously displaying and playing at least one playback session from the camera in at least one secondary video panel on the viewing screen, wherein the at least one playback session corresponds to at least one marked key moment in the incident video data stream, and wherein the at least one playback session is played in the at least one secondary video panel at a time corresponding to when the at least one marked key moment in the incident video data stream is being playing in the primary video panel, as recited in claim 9. ANALYSIS Claims 9—15 and 18—25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Minasyan and Drive The Examiner finds that Minasyan discloses displaying an incident video stream from the camera in a primary video panel on a viewing screen (Final Act. 4 (citing Minasyan || 34, 36—37; Fig. 5)), and simultaneously displaying and playing at least one playback session from the camera (“zone 1 ”) in at least one secondary video panel on the viewing screen (id. (citing Minasyan 134; Fig. 5)). The Examiner further finds that Minasyan discloses that the at least one playback session is played simultaneously in the at least one secondary video panel at a time corresponding to the incident video data stream being played in the primary video panel. Final Act. 4—5 (citing Minasyan || 36—37; Fig. 5). The Examiner expressly finds that 3 Appeal 2014-008609 Application 13/209,078 Minasyan fails to disclose the recited “wherein the at least one playback session corresponds to at least one marked key moment in the incident video data stream, and” and “wherein the at least one playback session is played in the at least one secondary video panel when the at least one marked key moment in the incident video data stream is being playing.” Id. at 5. However, the Examiner find that Drive discloses that the at least one playback session, in Drive, corresponds to the at least one marked key moment in the incident video data stream. Id. (citing Drive ]Hf 32—34; Figs. 3, 4). As the Examiner notes, Drive teaches that a user can review video data streams from a plurality of selected cameras and mark portions of each of the video data streams, associated time lines, or associated viewing screens. Id. at 5—6. For example, when a user observes a person of interest depicted on a viewing pane associated with a particular video data stream, the user can use a menu to select an “IN” marking when the person of interest is depicted on that particular viewing pane and a “OUT” marking when the person of interest is no longer depicted on the viewing pane. Id. at 6. As the Examiner explains, the “IN” and “OUT” markings can be associated with frame times from the camera corresponding to the particular data stream displayed in the selected viewing pane. Id. The Examiner further finds that Drive teaches that the at least one playback sessions is played in the at least one secondary video panel when the at least one marked key moment is being played in the incident video data stream. Id. (citing Drive Fig. 4). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the ability to include “marked” key moments in the incident video data stream, as taught by Drive, into the Minasyan’s system in order to allow a user “to create a 4 Appeal 2014-008609 Application 13/209,078 coherent video stream showing an object as it moves through a particular area, thus [increasing] user accessibility of the system.” Id. at 6—7; Ans. 17. Appellant argues that the combination of Minasyan and Drive fails to teach or suggest the recited displaying and playing an incident video data stream from a camera in a primary video panel on a viewing screen; and simultaneously displaying and playing at least one playback session from the camera in at least one secondary video panel on the viewing screen, wherein the at least one playback session corresponds to at least one marked key moment in the incident video data stream, and wherein the at least one playback session is played in the at least one secondary video panel at a time corresponding to when the at least one marked key moment in the incident video data stream is being playing in the primary video panel. App. Br. 8—9; Reply Br. 4. According to Appellant, Minasyan only teaches simultaneously displaying different portions of the same scene and Drive only teaches displaying scenes from different cameras. Id. at 9; id. at 4. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. Appellant challenges the teachings of the references separately, but the Examiner’s rejection is based on the combination of Minasyan and Drive. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references). The Examiner expressly finds that Minasyan fails to teach the recited “wherein the at least one playback session corresponds to at least one marked key moment in the incident video data stream,” and “wherein the at least one playback session is played in the at least one secondary video panel when the at least one marked key moment in the incident video data stream is being playing.” Ans. 16. The Examiner, however, finds that a skilled 5 Appeal 2014-008609 Application 13/209,078 artisan would have had reason to modify Minasyan’s system by including the “marking” teaching of Drive. Ans. 16—17. Specifically, Drive teaches a user identifying “IN” and “OUT” markings that can be associated with time frames from the camera corresponding to the particular data stream displayed in the selected viewing pane and viewing the incident video data stream and marked moment. Ans. 17 (citing Drive 32—34; Fig. 4). The Examiner finds that Drive teaches a “clear benefit in combining its marked key moment” in order to allow a user to “a coherent video stream showing an object as it moves through a particular area, thus, increas[ing] user accessibility of the system.” Ans. 17. Rather than rebut the findings of the Examiner, Appellant argues the references separately. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument, and we agree with Examiner that the combination of Minasyan and Drive teaches all the recited limitations of claim 9. In addition, as noted above, the Examiner has provided (id.) sufficient articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support the conclusion that it would have been obvious to modify the teachings of Minasyan based on the teachings of Drive. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Appellant further argues that Minasyan and Drive and the combination does not recognize the problem solved by the claimed invention. App. Br. 9. According to Appellant, “the problem solved is that of simultaneously displaying different portions of the same incident video data stream.” We disagree with Appellant. Appellant essentially argues that the combination of Minasyan and Drive is improper because Minasyan and Drive are not analogous art. Two separate tests define the scope of 6 Appeal 2014-008609 Application 13/209,078 analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved. In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Appellant’s Specification provides that the invention is directed to “video surveillance.” Spec. 11. Minasyan and Drive are similarly directed to video surveillance. Minasyan 13 (“This invention relates to surveillance systems and, in particular, to a workstation for use with a high-definition video stream from a megapixel camera or other device in a surveillance system.”); Drive 12 (“The present invention relates generally to video surveillance.”). As such, Minasyan and Drive are from the same field of endeavor to which Appellant’s invention is directed and, therefore, are analogous art. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9. Claims 10-15 and 18—22 depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 9. Independent claims 23 and 25 recite limitations similar to those of claim 9 and claims 24 depends from claim 23. Appellant does not make separate arguments with respect to claims 10-15 and 18—25, and, therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 10-15 and 18—25 for the same reasons we provide with respect to claim 9. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 9—15 and 18—25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Minasyan and Drive. 7 Appeal 2014-008609 Application 13/209,078 DECISION We affirm the rejections of claims 9—15 and 18—25. 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). AFFIRMED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation