Ex Parte Tink et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 30, 2017

13273131 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 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.
13/273,131 10/13/2011 Edsel James Tink H0031216/4874/114559 1000
92556 7590
HONEYWELL/HUSCH
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O.Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
EXAMINER
VAZQUEZ COLON, MARIA E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2482
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/01/2017 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 EDSEL JAMES TINK and VICTOR GOTTARDI
Appeal 2016-001643
Application 13/273,1311
Technology Center 2400
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, NORMAN H. BEAMER,
and ALEX S. YAP, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Non-Final Rejection of claims 1—19. We have jurisdiction over the pending
rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Honeywell International, Inc. as the real party in
interest. (App. Br. 2.)
Appeal 2016-001643
Application 13/273,131
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ disclosed and claimed invention is directed to a video
surveillance system including a database server and a media storage server.
(Abstract.)
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal:
1. A surveillance system comprising:
a plurality of cameras;
one or more media storage servers;
database servers;
recording servers coupled to the cameras by a publicly
available computer network, the video servers receive at least
video from the plurality of cameras, the at least video is stored
on the one or more media storage servers and metadata
associated with the at least video is communicated to the
database servers; and
a requesting computer wherein users, via respective
requesting computers and via the publicly available computer
network, request downloads of selected video clips of the stored
video, wherein client applications running on the requesting
computer query the metadata, via the database servers, for stored
recordings where the stored video signals are searched in
response to a user's query and where those recordings are
retrieved directly from the one or more media storage servers for
reviewing and monitoring at the requesting computer.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1,4, and 7—10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite. (Non-
Final Act. 6—7.) However, the Examiner has withdrawn the indefiniteness
2
Appeal 2016-001643
Application 13/273,131
rejections of claims 4 and 7—10 “on view of current amendments.”2 (Ans.
18.)
The Examiner rejected claims 1—19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Donovan et al. (US 7,999,847 B2, issued Aug. 16, 2011)
and Kostadinovich (US 2006/0242678 Al, pub. Oct. 26, 2006). (Non-Final
Act. 8-22.)
ISSUES ON APPEAL
Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs present the following issues:3
Issue One: Whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 for
indefiniteness. (App. Br. 2.)
Issue Two: Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Donovan and Kostadinovich teaches or suggests the independent claim 1
limitation:
a requesting computer wherein users, via respective
requesting computers and via the publicly available computer
network, request downloads of selected video clips of the stored
video, wherein client applications running on the requesting
computer query the metadata, via the database servers, for stored
recordings where the stored video signals are searched in
2 The amendments the Examiner refers to were filed March 25, 2015, after
the Non-Final Action. (3/25/15 Amendment.) Those Amendments were
denied entry by the Examiner. (4/9/15 Advisory Action.) In the event of
any further prosecution of claims 4 and 7—10, the Examiner should consider
whether to enter the amendments or renew the indefmiteness rejections.
3 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the findings of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Mar. 26, 2015, corrected June
16, 2015); the Reply Brief (filed Nov. 17, 2015); the Non-Final Office
Action (mailed Jan. 15, 2015); and the Examiner’s Answer (mailed Nov. 5,
2015) for the respective details.
3
Appeal 2016-001643
Application 13/273,131
response to a user's query and where those recordings are
retrieved directly from the one or more media storage servers for
reviewing and monitoring at the requesting computer. . . .
. . . and the similar limitations recited in independent claims 8 and 13. (App.
Br. 6-11.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments the Examiner erred. We disagree with Appellants’ arguments,
and we adopt as our own (1) the pertinent findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the Action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 6—22)
and (2) the corresponding findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (Ans. 18—
22). We concur with the applicable conclusions reached by the Examiner,
and emphasize the following.
Issue One
The Examiner rejects claim 1 for indefmiteness because there is
insufficient antecedent basis for “the video servers” and “the stored video
signals” in the claim. (Non-Final Act. 2.) Appellants state “[t]he claims
were amended on March 25, 2015 to correct the indefmiteness issues under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.” (App. Br. 2.) However, as discussed
above, these amendments were not entered and, in any event, they did not
4
Appeal 2016-001643
Application 13/273,131
address the Examiner’s issues with claim 1. (See 3/25/15 Amendment.)
Therefore, the Examiner’s indefmiteness rejection of claim 1 is sustained.4
Issue Two
In finding Donovan and Kostadinovich teach or suggest the
independent claim limitations at issue, the Examiner relies on the disclosure
in Donovan of a surveillance system including an events database and video
data storage devices, with a user interface that provides search capability of
the stored video via queries on the events database. (Non-Final Act. 8—10;
Ans. 18—21; Donovan Fig. 11, Table 2, col. 31,11. 22—52, col. 33,11. 61—67,
col. 36,11. 19—29.) The Examiner also relies on the disclosure in
Kostadinovich of a surveillance system with a recording server coupled to
cameras by a publicly available network. (Final Act. 10; Kostadinovich Fig.
2.)
Appellants argue the Examiner errs because “[njeither reference
discloses the storage of the video in media storage servers and metadata in
separate database servers.” (App. Br. 6.) To the contrary, as the Examiner
finds:
Donovan, in column 8 lines 30-32, discloses that the events
database (interpreted as database servers storing metadata) and
the video data (stored in the storage modules which are being
interpreted as the media storage servers) may be stored on
dedicated storage devices. Therefore, Donovan does disclose
separate video server and metadata server.
(Ans. 18-19.)
4 Should there be further prosecution of this Application, claims 2—7, which
depend from claim 1, should be rejected for indefmiteness if the insufficient
antecedent basis defects are not corrected for claim 1.
5
Appeal 2016-001643
Application 13/273,131
This is confirmed by the provision in Donovan for a “common server” to
house the events database and the video data, which is characterized as an
alternative to “dedicated storage devices” — this at least suggests the
“dedicated storage devices” of the former alternative are on separate servers.
(Donovan col. 8,11. 32—33.) In addition, we agree with the Examiner:
[A] server, by definition, is a computer program or a machine
capable of accepting requests from clients and responding to
them. In Donovan the storage modules and the events database
perform the function of accepting requests (accepting metadata
queries) and responding to said requests (retrieving video
indexed by metadata).
(Ans. 21.)
Thus, Appellants’ argument limiting the claims to separate physical servers
is not commensurate with the broadest reasonable scope of the claims.
Appellants further argue the Examiner “has failed to meet the burden
of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.” (App. Br. 10.) We are
not persuaded by this argument because, as discussed above, Donovan does
teach or suggest the claim limitations at issue. As the Examiner also
correctly notes, Appellants’ related argument, that “none of the cited
references are directed to the problem solved by the claimed invention,” is
not relevant to the obviousness determination — see MPEP § 2144 IV (9th
Ed. 2014). (Ans. 21-22.)
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, we sustain the indefmiteness rejection of
independent claim 1, and the obviousness rejections of independent claims
1, 8, and 13. We also sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 2—7, 9—
12, and 14—19, which rejections are not argued separately with particularity.
6
Appeal 2016-001643
Application 13/273,131
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—19.
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
7