Ex Parte Sivakumar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 23, 2016

12497020 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/497,020 0710212009
92556 7590
HONEYWELL/HUSCH
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O.Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
03/25/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Balaji Badhey Sivakumar
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
H0023651 4874/108650 5627
EXAMINER
KIM, HEE-YONG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2482
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/25/2016 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@honeywell.com
amy.hammer@huschblackwell.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 BALAJI BADHEY SIV AKUMAR,
ABDUL RAHEEM, JAY APRAKASH
CHANDRASEKARAN, and SACHIN J
Appeal2014-006921
Application 12/497,020
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judges.
ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a non-final rejection of
claims 1-7, 9, 10, and 13-20. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method comprising:
1 Appellants do not appeal the rejection of claims 8, 11, and 12. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-006921
Application 12/497,020
displaying at least a first video data stream associated
with at least a first data collection device monitoring a first
reg10n;
selecting a linked area in the displayed first video data
stream;
identifying at least a second data collection device
associated with the linked area in the displayed first video data
stream; and
displaying at least a second video data stream associated
with the second data collection device, wherein the second data
collection device monitors a second region.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-7, 9, 10, and 13-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Fleming (US 2006/0279628 Al; pub. Dec. 14,
2006) and Argasinski (US 200710171049 Al; pub. July 26, 2007).
Appellants acknowledge the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fleming, Argasinski, and Gornick (US
2009/0010493 Al; pub. Jan. 8, 2009) and the rejection of claims 11and12
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fleming, Argasinski,
and Kumhyr (US 2004/0001142 Al; pub. Jan. 1, 2004). App. Br. 2.
Because Appellants do not appeal the rejection of claims 8, 11, and 12 (see
App. Br. 2), we summarily sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.3l(c) (2012).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Fleming teaches streaming non-continuous video
data via multiple data collection devices and Argasinski teaches "click[ing]
on an embedded actual image link ... in order to further enhance the
navigation of the video surveillance by the fast access of another view."
2
Appeal2014-006921
Application 12/497,020
Non-final Act. 3--4 citing Fleming, Fig. 1, if 852; Argasinski, Figs. 7, 8,
ifif73-75. The Examiner concludes that
[e]ven though Argasinski teaches an image, not video,
containing embedded link to the second video[] ... it was
obvious to the ordinary person in the art [] to apply the same
method to Fleming's video surveillance with multiple cameras
assigned to different zones, in order to further enhance the
navigation of the video surveillance by the fast access of
another view by clicking embedded links.
Non-final Act. 4.
First, Appellants argue Argasinski does not disclose the "selecting"
limitation recited in claim 1 and instead, describes that a "navigation input
device determines a current navigation position." App. Br. 6 citing
Argasinski if 7. Second, Appellants argue Argasinski does not disclose the
"identifying" limitation, and instead describes "identif[ying] fixed images
based upon the current navigation position." Id. Third, Appellants argue
"none of the cited references of Fleming or Argasinski recognize the
problem solved by the claimed invention ... being able to link cameras (and
images) that show a single common selectable surveillance object and that
can be activated by selection of that object." Id. at 8.
With regard to Appellants' first argument, the Examiner
acknowledges "Argasinski teaches an image, not video" and cites
"Fleming's video surveillance with multiple cameras assigned to different
zones." Non-final Act. 3. In the portions cited by the Examiner, Argasinski
teaches an "actual image view of [a] cafeteria [that] contains embedded links
to other actual image views, including the corridor leading away from the
cafeteria" and "[b ]y clicking on the embedded link to the corridor, the actual
image of the corridor is displayed." Argasinski iii! 73, 74. Therefore,
3
Appeal2014-006921
Application 12/497,020
Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Fleming and Argasinski teaches or suggests the "selecting"
limitation.
Appellants' second argument is unpersuasive as it constitutes an
impermissible, individual attack on the references. Appellants do not
address what the combined teachings of Fleming and Argasinski would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art, nor do Appellants address the
portions of Argasinski cited by the Examiner. Fig. 6 of Argasinski, cited by
the Examiner, is described in paragraph 86 as illustrating linking
surveillance camera locations displayed (as dots) on an overhead layout
view with a live surveillance camera feed. Moreover, Appellants do not
present sufficient evidence that combining Argasinski' s embedded linked
images with Fleming's video streams and video cameras would have been
"uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art" nor that
it "represented an unobvious step over the prior art." See Leapfrog Enters.,
Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citation
omitted). Therefore, Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred
in finding the combination of Fleming and Argasinski teaches or suggests
the "identifying" limitation.
Appellants' third argument is unpersuasive as it is unnecessary for the
prior art to address the same purpose as that disclosed in Appellants'
Specification in order to support the conclusion that the claimed subject
matter would have been obvious. See In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 1016
(CCPA 1972); see also KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419
(2007) ("[N]either the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the
[Appellants] controls" in an obviousness analysis.)
4
Appeal2014-006921
Application 12/497,020
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us the
Examiner erred in finding the combination of Fleming and Argasinski
teaches or suggests the limitations as recited in claim 1, commensurate
limitations ofclaim 15, and limitations of claims 2-7, 9, 10, and 16-20,
which depend therefrom and are not separately argued.
Independent claim 13 does not include the disputed "selecting" and
"identifying" limitations. As Appellants do not present arguments
specifically addressing the language of claim 13, we affirm the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claim 13, and claim 14 which depends therefrom.
Therefore, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1-7,
9, 10, and 13-20.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-7, 9, 10, and 13-20 is
affirmed.
The Examiner's decision to reject 8, 11, and 12 is summarily
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5