KSI Data Sciences Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 28, 2020

14541923 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 2020)

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.
14/541,923 11/14/2014 Jason Barton 200300.00007 4564
24998 7590 08/28/2020
Blank Rome LLP
1825 Eye Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-5403
EXAMINER
FEREJA, SAMUEL D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2487
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/28/2020 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):
WashingtonDocketing@blankrome.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JASON BARTON and JON GASTER
____________

Appeal 2020-005325
Application 14/541,923
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JAMES B. ARPIN, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) the Examiner’s final
rejections of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 21–41. Final Act. 2.2 Claim 3 is
canceled, and claims 6–20 are withdrawn. Appeal Br. 10–13 (Claims App.).

1 “Appellant” here refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42.
Appellant identifies the real party-in-interest as KSI Data Sciences Inc.
Appeal Br. 2.
2 In this Decision, we refer to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed
April 17, 2020) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed July 13, 2020); the Final
Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed October 30, 2019) and the Examiner’s
Answer (“Ans.,” mailed May 13, 2020); and the Specification (“Spec.,” filed
November 14, 2014). Rather than repeat the Examiner’s findings and
determinations and Appellant’s contentions in their entirety, we refer to
these documents.
Appeal 2020-005325
Application 14/541,923

2

We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s claimed systems and methods
relate[] to unmanned aerial vehicle integration hardware and
software system for use in connection with the Internet and
mobile networks. The present invention includes an unmanned
aerial vehicle encoding streaming device, a software system and
an interface which enables an end-user to perform geospatial
searches on video and camera feeds from various siloed sources
so that immediate data access will become available and
analytics, such as rules application, timeline construction, chain
of custody and various other parameters, can be easily
established.
Spec. ¶ 2.
As noted above, claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 21–41 stand rejected. Claims 1
and 30 are independent. Appeal Br. 9–10 (claim 1), 14 (claim 30) (Claims
App.). Claim 1 recites “[a]n unmanned collaborative aerial vehicle data
management system,” and claim 30 recites “[a] method for collaboratively
utilizing aerial vehicle data for at least one unmanned aerial vehicle.” Id.
Claims 2, 4, 5, 21–29, 40, and 41 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1;
and claims 31–39 depend directly or indirectly from claim 30. Id. at 10–15.
Claim 1, reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized, is
illustrative.
1. An unmanned collaborative aerial vehicle data management
system, comprising:
at least one unmanned aerial vehicle;
an unmanned aerial vehicle system ground station;
a local content delivery network;
Appeal 2020-005325
Application 14/541,923

3

a signal encoder broadcaster comprising:
a WiFi module;
a DSP configured to receive HDMI data and telemetry via
a video multiplexer chip, GPS data via a module, cellular data
via the module, and WiFi data via the WiFi module, the
multiplexer chip and the module being comprised in the signal
encoder broadcaster; and
a field programmable gate array for controlling the DSP
which executes on-the-fly encode/decode data and signal
packetization and encapsulation;
the unmanned aerial vehicle data management system
further comprising:
a local cache which receives data from the encoder
broadcaster for local storage;
a data manager located on the Internet cloud which
receives live UAV video from the signal encoder broadcaster and
archival data from the local cache; and
a remote content delivery network for signal transmission
to a computer browser and at least one mobile device having a
display;
a collaboration tool providing an informed decision loop
for at least one user that is coordinated by the data manager;
a user authenticator for enabling the encoder broadcaster
to transmit live UAV video to and receive communications from
authenticated resources via the Internet,
wherein dynamic data streams originating from the at least
one UAV are managed, coordinated and fused with imagery and
data from other remote sensors for delivery to the at least one
mobile device via WiFi in order to collaboratively manage
multiple users to iteratively identify to the at least one user when
and where the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle has navigated
through targeted locations and where the at least one UAV
originated from,
wherein the at least one mobile device is configured to display a
map on the display and allow identification of a bookmarked
Appeal 2020-005325
Application 14/541,923

4

area of the map by the at least one user, and
wherein the data manager is configured to create model
instances necessary to automatically provide alerts to the at least
one mobile device regarding the bookmarked area.
Id. at 9–10 (emphases added). Claim 30 similarly recites the steps of
“receiving from the at least one user the identification of a bookmarked area
of the map” and “creating model instances necessary to automatically
provide alerts to the at least one mobile device regarding the bookmarked
area.” Id. at 14 (emphases added).
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following references in rejecting the
claims:
Name3 Number Publ’d Filed
Gale US 2011/0103293 A1 May 5, 2011 Oct. 29, 2010
Khazan US 2012/0237028 A1 Sept. 20, 2012 Mar. 17, 2011
Verna US 2012/0299751 A1 Nov. 29, 2012 Jan. 30, 2012
Canant US 2013/0021475 A1 Jan. 24, 2013 Jan. 20, 2012
Omer US 2013/0050486 A1 Feb. 28, 2013 Aug. 29, 2011
Specifically, claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 21–27 and 38–41 stand rejected as
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combined teachings of Omer,
Gale, Khazan, and Canant (Final Act. 5–17); claims 28 and 29 stand rejected
as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combined teachings of
Omer, Gale, Khazan, Canant, and Verna (id. at 18–19); claims 30, 31, and
34–37 stand rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the
combined teachings of Omer, Khazan, and Canant (id. at 20–23); and

3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.
Appeal 2020-005325
Application 14/541,923

5

claims 32 and 33 stand rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
the combined teachings of Omer, Khazan, Canant, and Verna (id. at 23–25).
The Examiner relies on similar combinations of references and
substantially similar arguments and evidence in rejecting claims 1 and 30.
Final Act. 5–11, 20–22. Appellant contests the obviousness rejection of
independent claim 1 (Appeal Br. 4–6) and relies on the alleged deficiencies
in that rejection with respect to Canant’s teachings to overcome the
rejections of independent claim 30 and the dependent claims (id. at 6–7).
Because we determine that reversal of the rejection of independent claim 1 is
dispositive, except for our ultimate decision, we do not discuss the merits of
the rejections of claims 2, 4, 5, and 21–41 further herein.4 We review the
appealed rejection of independent claim 1 for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
We address the rejection of claim 1 below.
ANALYSIS
1. Obviousness of Claim 1 Over Omer, Gale, Khazan, and Canant
As noted above, the Examiner rejects independent claim 1 as obvious
over the combined teachings of Omer, Gale, Khazan, and Canant. Final
Act. 5–11. In particular, the Examiner finds that Omer, Gale, and Khazan
teach or suggest the majority of the limitations of claim 1 and that a person
of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the teachings

4 Appellant argues claims 37 and 41 separately. Appeal Br. 6, 7; see
Ans. 27. Because we reverse the Examiner’s rejections of the independent
claims, we do not reach Appellant’s contentions with respect to claims 37
and 41.
Appeal 2020-005325
Application 14/541,923

6

of those references to achieve the recited limitations. Id. at 5–10. Appellant
does not challenge the Examiner’s findings regarding the teachings of these
references or their combination. See Appeal Br. 4–5.
The Examiner finds that none of Omer or Gale or Khazan teaches the
final two limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 10. In particular, claim 1
concludes by reciting
wherein the at least one mobile device is configured to
display a map on the display and allow identification of a
bookmarked area of the map by the at least one user, and
wherein the data manager is configured to create model
instances necessary to automatically provide alerts to the at
least one mobile device regarding the bookmarked area.
Appeal Br. 10 (Claims App.) (emphases added). The Examiner finds,
however, that Canant teaches or suggests these limitations (Final Act. 10
(citing Canant ¶¶ 23, 32, 97, 99)) and that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have had reason to combine Canant’s teachings with those of Omer,
Gale, and Khazan to achieve the systems of claim 1 (id. at 10–11).
Appellant contends that Canant fails to teach or suggest these
limitations for two reasons. Appeal Br. 4–5; Reply Br. 1–2. We find one of
these reasons persuasive of Examiner error.
First, Appellant contends Canant fails to teach or suggest
“identification of a bookmarked area of the map by the at least one user.”
Appeal Br. 5; Reply Br. 3. In particular, Appellant contends,
“[Canant’s] bookmarks may be referenced to a particular video
file and offset into the file, providing the operator with a quick
method of returning to points of interest in the video.” The
bookmarks of Canant are, therefore, associated with a particular
point in time (i.e., “offset”) in a video, and not “an area of [a]
map” as recited in claim 1.
Appeal 2020-005325
Application 14/541,923

7

Appeal Br. 5 (quoting Canant ¶ 97; citation omitted); see Reply Br. 3
(“Canant teaches only that a user may identify a bookmark in a video clip,
and not ‘a bookmarked area [in any] map.’”). Although Canant discloses a
“synchronized map display,” Appellant contends that “the synchronized map
may show a location corresponding to a bookmarked portion of the video,
such synchronization does not equate to ‘allow[ing] identification of a
bookmarked area of the map by the at least one user,’ as recited in the
claims.” Reply Br. 3; but see Ans. 27 (discussing Canant ¶¶ 99, 100
describing “a Tactical Situational Awareness Map (TSAM) 224 that
provides a synchronized geospatial information map display for both live
and/or playback streams and integrates databases into 3D mapping”).
Second, Appellant contends Canant fails to teach or suggest
“automatically provid[ing] alerts to the at least one mobile device regarding
the bookmarked area.” Appeal Br. 5–6; Reply Br. 3. In particular,
Appellant contends
As an initial matter, as described above Canant does not disclose
a “bookmarked area,” but instead discloses a bookmarked scene
in a video. In addition, Canant does not disclose any alerts that
are associated with these bookmarked scenes. Rather than
relying on any actual “alerts” taught in Canant, the Examiner
instead points to [] descriptions of a querying capability.
Appeal Br. 5. Specifically, Appellant contends that the results of Canant’s
database queries are not “alerts” and are not automatically provided to “the
at least one mobile device.” Id. at 5–6; but see Ans. 27 (discussing Canant
¶¶ 66, 97, 100).
We begin our analysis with the language of the disputed limitations.
The Office
applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims the broadest
Appeal 2020-005325
Application 14/541,923

8

reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they
would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking
into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or
otherwise that may be afforded by the written description
contained in the applicant’s specification.
In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Although the
Specification does not define “bookmark” expressly, we understand a
“bookmark” to encompass marking a specific point in a document or file
that a user may identify for future reference. See Spec. ¶¶ 94, 97; see also,
e.g., MICROSOFT COMPUTER DICTIONARY, 67 (5th ed. 2002) (“A marker
inserted at a specific point in a document to which the user may wish to
return for later reference.”). Similarly, the Specification does not define
“alerts” expressly. Nevertheless, the Specification provides examples of
“alerts.” See Spec. ¶¶ 84, 87, 88, Figs. 10 and 12. Referring to the
Specification’s Figure 10, color coded alerts are depicted on the right side of
graphic user interface (GUI) 1604. Id. ¶ 84. Similarly, in the
Specification’s Figure 12, green (1802), red (1804), yellow (1806), and blue
(1808) alerts are depicted in GUI 1800. Id. ¶ 88. These alerts are provided
automatically to users with situation status or updates. Id. Thus, we
understand the recited “alerts” to encompass notifying a user’s mobile
device of situation status or updates without the user requesting the situation
status or update.
The Examiner finds that Canant teaches or suggests “providing
bookmarks with text and geo-location recorded to database and
automated bookmarking of video streams containing the target.” Final
Act. 10 (quoting Canant ¶¶ 23, 32). Moreover, Canant discloses that a
tactical video exploitation system (TVS) may be provided with a Tactical
Digital Video Player, which “Interfaces to map applications such as Google
Appeal 2020-005325
Application 14/541,923

9

Earth, Envitia Maplink Pro, NASA World Wind, ArcMap, etc.” (Canant
¶¶ 18, 25) and includes the “[m]ap and video display of targets” (id. ¶¶ 27,
30; see id. ¶ 79 (discussing mapping of targets)). Canant further explains:
A TVS may be further configured in one exemplary embodiment
to provide one or more of the following basic operational
functions for an image sensor system: viewing, sensor control,
map interaction, target management, recording, and/or
encoding/routing. TVS software may be built around the concept
of web services and, as such, may be configured to be inherently
interoperable with other networked services such as map servers
and other XML-based data interchange programs.
Id. ¶ 5 (emphases added); see id. ¶ 66 (“In the exemplary embodiment of
FIG. 2A, Tactical Video Viewer (TVV) 222 may be used as the primary
graphic user interface (e.g., by presenting a graphical user interface GUI on
a local or remote video display) for TVS 104. In this role, TVV 222 may be
configured to allow a user to display, edit, query, render, exploit, and export
both still and video imagery of the TVS 104, as well as to allow the viewing
of live and recorded video and still imagery.” (emphasis added)). Thus, we
agree with the Examiner that Canant teaches or suggests bookmarking an
area of a map, as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 10; Ans. 26–27.
Nevertheless, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner fails to show
Canant teaches or suggests “automatically provid[ing] alerts to the at least
one mobile device regarding the bookmarked area.” Appeal Br. 10 (Claims
App.). The Examiner finds that
Canant discloses [] primary graphic user interface allow[s] a user
to display, edit, query, render, exploit, and export both still and
video imagery and database and query system to provide a local
or remote operator with immediate access to segments of video
equating to geographic locations of the collected imagery, time
within the mission of the collected imagery, bookmarked scenes
of interest in the collected imagery.
Appeal 2020-005325
Application 14/541,923

10

Ans. 27 (citing Canant ¶¶ 66, 97, 100). Nevertheless, Canant merely
discloses, “[a] Query panel may also be provided by the viewer 222 to allow
an user to search the archive in database 260 for stored video, stills, and
bookmarks.” Canant ¶ 99; see Final Act. 10. We are persuaded the ability
to search a database does not teach or suggest “automatically provid[ing]
alerts.” See Appeal Br. 5–6; Ans. 26. Further, we are persuaded the ability
to edit still or video imagery (Canant ¶ 66) or to annotate bookmarks (id.
¶ 100) does not teach or suggest “automatically provid[ing] alerts.” See
Appeal Br. 5–6; Ans. 27. The Examiner fails to show where Canant teaches
or suggests any form of “alert,” as we understand that term. Thus, we find
the Examiner does not show that Canant teaches or suggests this final
limitation.
Consequently, we are persuaded that the Examiner errs in rejecting
claim 1, and we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 1.
2. The Remaining Claims
As noted above, Appellant challenges the rejection of independent
claim 30 for substantially the same reasons as claim 1. Appeal Br. 7. For
the reasons given above with respect to claim 1, we also do not sustain the
rejection of independent claim 30.
Each of claims 2, 4, 5, 21–29, and 31–41 depends directly from
independent claim 1 or 30. Id. at 10–15 (Claims App.). Our reversal of the
Examiner’s rejections of independent claims 1 and 30 is dispositive with
respect to the dependent claims. Id. at 6–7; see Reply Br. 3. Because we are
persuaded the Examiner errs with respect to the obviousness rejection of
claims 1 and 30, we also are persuaded the Examiner errs with respect to the
Appeal 2020-005325
Application 14/541,923

11

obviousness rejections of claims 2, 4, 5, and 21–41. For this reason, we do
not sustain the rejections of the dependent claims.
DECISION
1. The Examiner errs in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 21–41 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as rendered obvious over the combined teachings of
Omer, Khazan, and Canant, alone or in combination with another
reference or references.
2. Thus, on this record, claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 21–41 are not unpatentable.
CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 21–41.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4, 5,
21–27, 38–
41
103 Omer, Gale,
Khazan, Canant

1, 2, 4, 5,
21–27, 38–
41
28, 29 103 Omer, Gale,
Khazan, Canant,
Verna
28, 29
30, 31, 34–
37
103 Omer, Khazan,
Canant
30, 31, 34–
37
32, 33 103 Omer, Khazan,
Canant, Verna
32, 33
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 4, 5,
21–41
REVERSED