Kofax, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 29, 2021

2020005365 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 29, 2021)

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. 15/396,306 12/30/2016 Jan W. Amtrup KFX1P078 5305 145143 7590 10/29/2021 Zilka-Kotab, PC- Kofax 1155 N. 1st St. Suite 105 SAN JOSE, CA 95112 EXAMINER CHAUDHURI, ANITA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2173 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/29/2021 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): chrisc@zilkakotab.com zk-uspto@zilkakotab.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte JAN W. AMTRUP, JIYONG MA, STEPHEN MICHAEL THOMPSON, ALEXANDER SHUSTOROVICH CHRISTOPHER W. THRASHER, and ANTHONY MACCIOLA ____________________ Appeal 2020-005365 Application 15/396,3061 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, MARC S. HOFF, and JOHNNY A. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appellant’s claimed invention is a device, method, and computer program product for real time video data processing. An image processing server is configured to process, in real time, input streamed to the server 1 Appellant states that the real party in interest is Kofax, Inc. Appeal Br. 2. 2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appeal 2020-005365 Application 15/396,306 2 from a mobile device, the input comprising one or more frames of digital video data. The server outputs the result of processing the input to the mobile device. Abstract. Claim 1 is reproduced below: 1. An image processing server, comprising at least one processor, and logic configured, upon execution thereof by the processor, to cause the server to: process, in real time, input streamed to the server from a mobile device, the input comprising one or more frames of digital video data; and output a result of processing the input to the mobile device. The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence is: Name Reference Date Martins US 2003/0179294 A1 Sept. 25, 2003 Choi et al. “Choi” US 2004/0071311 A1 Apr. 15, 2004 Chang et al. “Chang” US 2004/0125877 A1 July 1, 2004 Conning US 2004/0250205 A1 Dec. 9, 2004 Vertegaal US 2006/0093998 A1 May 4, 2006 Claims 1, 8, 9, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by Conning. Claims 2, 10, 14, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Conning, Chang, and Martins. Claims 3 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Conning and Chang. Claims 4, 6, 11, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Conning and Choi. Appeal 2020-005365 Application 15/396,306 3 Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Conning and Martins. Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Conning, Choi, and Vertegaal. Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Conning and Vertegaal. Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Conning, Chang, Martins, and Choi. Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed [date]), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed [date]), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed [date]) for their respective details. ISSUES 1. Does Conning teach streaming input to the server from a mobile device? 2. Does Conning teach processing input, which comprises one or more frames of digital video data, in real time? ANALYSIS Section 102 rejection of claims 1, 8, 9, 16, and 17 Independent claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, an image processing server configured to “process, in real time, input streamed to the server from a mobile device, the input comprising one or more frames of digital video data.” Independent claims 8 and 16 recite analogous limitations. Appellant argues that Conning does not teach an image processing server configured to process input streamed to the server from a mobile device. Appeal Br. 7. Appellant argues that Conning’s teaching of Appeal 2020-005365 Application 15/396,306 4 transferring image data from a camera to a client computer and uploading image data from the client computer to a server does not correspond to the claimed “streaming.” Id. Appellant argues that no disclosure in Conning teaches “streaming input comprising one or more frames of video data to a server from a mobile device. Conning exclusively discusses uploading photos to a computer then transferring to the server.” Appeal Br. 9–10. In the Reply Brief, Appellant contends that Conning’s transfer of image data cannot correspond to the claimed streaming because Conning transfers the image data via an intermediary client computer. Reply Br. 3. Appellant’s Specification does not provide its own definition of “streamed” or “streaming.” The Microsoft Computer Dictionary defines the verb “to stream” as “to transfer data continuously, beginning to end, in a steady flow.”3 Conning teaches that photographic images captured by the camera 106 or camera phone 105 are downloaded to client computer 102, and are transmitted from client computer 102 to a web application server computer 104 over network 110. Conning ¶ 22, 25. Conning further teaches that at the server, such images are composed into a webpage, and “the process streams the resulting HTML out to the calling web browser.” Conning ¶ 68. We further observe that Conning teaches that the photographs can be digital still photos, frames of digital video, or other types of digital image. Conning ¶ 23. In the Reply Brief, Appellant endeavors to distinguish streaming (a term used in the claims under appeal) from downloading and uploading (terms used in Conning). Reply Br. 5–6. Appellant asserts that where 3 Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Fifth Edition (2002), p. 499. Appeal 2020-005365 Application 15/396,306 5 streaming “involves continuous flow of data from a source to a destination, where the data are immediately utilized,” uploading and downloading “refer to network-based data transfer involving a copy of a data file.” Id. Assuming arguendo that Appellant’s definitions comport with knowledge in the art, we do not perceive a conflict between the terms “streaming” and uploading/downloading. Even under Appellant’s definitions, uploading and downloading may occur by streaming. Appellant has not identified disclosure in Conning that indicates that the uploading and downloading disclosed in Conning fail to operate in a manner consistent with the concept of “streaming.” Appellant’s Reply Brief argument that Conning fails to teach the claimed streaming because of the use of an intermediary computer is similarly unpersuasive. Reply Br. 4. Appellant acknowledges that the claims do not recite that the input is streamed directly to the server from a mobile device. Id. Appellant nevertheless insists that the Examiner erred because the claims do not recite any intermediary for the streamed input. Id. However, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Conning teaches streaming input that originates from a mobile device and reaches the destination of a server. See Final Act. 2, citing Conning Fig. 2. Appellant also argues that Conning does not teach processing input streamed to the server “in real time.” Appellant urges that “real time” must be construed as expressed in paragraph 77 of the Specification, i.e., “the amount of time required to complete a given processing operation on a given frame of the video data is less than or equal to the amount of time that elapses between capturing two successive frames of the video data.” Appeal Br. 10. The Examiner finds that Conning teaches that “incremental changes Appeal 2020-005365 Application 15/396,306 6 are immediately applied and available without a separate publishing step.” Ans. 4 (emphasis omitted), citing Conning ¶ 64. We agree with the Examiner that Appellant has broadly claimed “in real time” without including the Specification’s example definition in the claim language, and Conning teaches that “all pages served are served dynamically from the latest data” “without a separate publishing step.” Id. (emphasis omitted). Construing the claims in light of the Specification and its definition of “real time,” we nevertheless agree with the Examiner that Conning’s teaching that “incremental changes are immediately applied” does not conflict with the time periods expressed in the definition. Id. (emphasis omitted). Appellant did not provide evidence that the Specification definition is not satisfied by Conning’s teaching that the changes are immediately applied, and thus did not rebut the Examiner’s reasonable finding. See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977). We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Conning teaches processing, in real time, input streamed to the server from a mobile device. Appellant further argues in the Reply Brief that processing HTML representing video data does not correspond to the claimed processing of the input, as opposed to processing the raw digital video data. We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred. Conning is directed to assembling collections of images (e.g. still photos, digital video frames) into rendered web pages. Conning teaches streaming those rendered web pages “immediately” and “without a separate publishing step.” Conning ¶ 64. Appellant relies on the claim 1 arguments in arguing for the patentability of independent claims 8 and 16. We are thus similarly unpersuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 8 and 16. Appeal 2020-005365 Application 15/396,306 7 Because we find that the Examiner did not err, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 8, 9, 16, and 17 as being anticipated by Conning. Section 103 rejection of Claims 2–7, 10–15, and 18–20 Appellant does not separately argue for the patentability of these dependent claims, relying instead on the arguments made for the patentability of independent claims 1, 8, and 16. As explained supra, we sustain the Examiner’s § 102 rejection of those claims. Therefore, and for the same reasons given supra, we sustain the § 103 rejection of claims 2, 10, 14, 18, and 19 over Conning, Chang, and Martins; of claims 3 and 13 over Conning and Chang; of claims 4, 6, 11, and 20 over Conning and Choi; of claim 5 over Conning and Martins; of claim 7 over Conning, Choi, and Vertegaal; of claim 12 over Conning and Vertegaal; and of claim 15 over Conning, Chang, Martins, and Choi. CONCLUSIONS 1. Conning teaches streaming input to the server from a mobile device. 2. Conning teaches processing input, which comprises one or more frames of digital video data, in real time. Appeal 2020-005365 Application 15/396,306 8 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/ Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 8, 9, 16, 17 102(a)(1) Conning 1, 8, 9, 16, 17 2, 10, 14, 18, 19 103 Conning, Chang, Martins 2, 10, 14, 18, 19 3, 13 103 Conning, Chang 3, 13 4, 6, 11, 20 103 Conning, Choi 4, 6, 11, 20 5 103 Conning, Martins 5 7 103 Conning, Choi, Vertegaal 7 12 103 Conning, Vertegaal 12 15 103 Conning, Chang, Martins, Choi 15 Overall Outcome 1–20 The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED