Ex Parte M

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2017

13209078 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 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.
13/209,078 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