PANASONIC INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT CO., LTD.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 29, 2020

2019002555 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 29, 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.
14/813,494 07/30/2015 Yuichi MATSUMOTO P48218 9753
52123 7590 10/29/2020
GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C.
1950 ROLAND CLARKE PLACE
RESTON, VA 20191
EXAMINER
MAHMUD, FARHAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2483
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/29/2020 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):
gbpatent@gbpatent.com
greenblum.bernsteinplc@gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YUICHI MATSUMOTO and KAZUMA YOSHIDA
Appeal 2019-002555
Application 14/813,494
Technology Center 2400
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and
JOHNNY A. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–16. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a) (2017). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
PANASONIC INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT CO., LTD.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-002555
Application 14/813,494

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a monitoring system and method using a
monitoring moving image that results from superimposing a heat map image
and the mask image onto a background image that is generated and is output
at every predetermined point in time. Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below,
is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:

1. A monitoring apparatus that generates and outputs a
monitoring moving image that results from superimposing a
foreground image showing an activity situation of a moving
object in a monitoring area onto a background image, the
monitoring apparatus comprising:
a processor;

a memory in which an instruction is stored;

a position information acquirer that detects a moving
object from a moving image of the monitoring area and
acquires position information on every moving object;

a statistical information acquirer that performs
temporal statistical processing on the position information
acquired by the position information acquirer and acquires
statistical information relating to a staying situation of the
moving object in accordance with setting of a target period
of time for the statistical processing;

a first foreground image generator that generates a
first foreground image that results from visualizing the
statistical information acquired by the statistical information
acquirer;

a second foreground image generator that generates a
second foreground image having a shape corresponding to an
outline of an image area of the moving object at every
Appeal 2019-002555
Application 14/813,494

3
predetermined point in time based on the position information
acquired by the positional information acquirer;
and

a moving image output controller that generates and
outputs the monitoring moving image that results from
superimposing the first and second foreground images that
are generated by the first and second foreground image
generators, respectively, onto the background image at every
predetermined point in time,

wherein the position information acquirer, the
statistical information acquirer, the first foreground image
generator, the second foreground mage generator, and the
moving image output controller are configured to execute
the instruction of the processor.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:

Elfving et al. US 6,774,905 B2 Aug.10, 2004
Mummareddy et al. US 8,098,888 B1 Jan. 17, 2012

REJECTION
Claims 1–16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Mummareddy in view of Elfving.
Appeal 2019-002555
Application 14/813,494

4
OPINION
35 U.S.C. § 103
Claims 1, 10, and 11
With respect to independent claims 1, 10, and 11, Appellant sets forth
separate arguments for patentability with separate headings, but sets forth
similar arguments for patentability. Appeal Br. 13, 17, 20. Therefore, we
select independent claim 1 as the representative claim for the group and will
address Appellant’s arguments thereto. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). As
a result, independent claims 10 and 11 will stand or fall with representative
independent claim 1.
With respect to representative independent claim 1, Appellant recites
the language of independent claim 1 and contends that the Mummareddy
reference fails to teach or disclose the second foreground image generator
and a moving image output controller. Appeal Br. 14. Appellant
parenthetically includes “(e.g., mask image)” with respect to the second
foreground image, but a “mask” and a “heat map” (first foreground image)
are not recited in the language of independent claim 1.
Thus, Appellant’s argument fails because the argument is not
commensurate with the scope of claim 1. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344,
1348 (CCPA 1982) (“[A]ppellant’s arguments fail from the outset because
. . . they are not based on limitations appearing in the claims.”); see also In
re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“[The] proffered facts
. . . are not commensurate with the claim scope and are therefore
unpersuasive.”). The broad language of claim 1 merely specifies a first
foreground image and second foreground image.
Appeal 2019-002555
Application 14/813,494

5
Appellant further contends that the Examiner’s conclusory statement
“in order to preserve the privacy of users of the monitoring apparatus lacks
the required articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” Appeal Br. 15. Appellant
further contends that because the Mummareddy reference erases out images
of individuals and generates “blobs” or “trip lines,” the teachings of the
Elfving reference for privacy would be unnecessary to preserve privacy.
Appeal Br. 15–16.
The Examiner reproduces portions of the Mummareddy reference and
further identifies how the teachings and suggestions of the Mummareddy
reference meet the broad language of independent claim 1. It is well settled
that, during patent examination, claims must be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. Phillips v. AWH
Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). The broadest
reasonable interpretation standard requires the words of the claims to be
given their “broadest reasonable meaning . . . 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, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
However, although we interpret claims broadly but reasonably in light of the
Specification, we nonetheless must not import limitations from the
Specification into the claims. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323 (citations
omitted).
We find the language of representative independent claim 1 to be
rather broad, and note that Appellant’s Summary of the Claimed Subject
Appeal 2019-002555
Application 14/813,494

6
Matter does not provide the required correlation to the Specification and
generally refers to the disclosed invention of all 15 figures and 27 pages of
the detailed description rather than addressing the specific claim language in
the correlations. Appeal Br. 6–7. We further note that the language of
representative independent claim 1 is much broader than Appellant’s
correlation and arguments.
Appellant also repeats the language of the “moving image output
controller that generates and outputs the monitoring moving image,” but
Appellant does not provide any specific argument for patentability
regarding this limitation. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). We question
whether this limitation has to do with the graphical user interface shown
in Figure 7 or whether it is merely the display of data. Under the
broadest reasonable interpretation, we interpret it to be a mere display of
image data.
With respect to the combination of the teachings of Mummareddy and
Elfving references, the Examiner has provided a line of reasoning supporting
combining the teachings of the references. Final Act. 6. Appellant merely
contends that “erasing” of the image by Mummareddy was sufficient to meet
the privacy requirements, and the teachings of the Elfving would be
unnecessary but for the Examiner’s reliance on hindsight from Appellant’s
Specification. Appeal Br. 15. We find Appellant’s general argument to be
unavailing to show error in the Examiner’s articulated line of reasoning.
Appellant does not provide any citation to the Specification to
support the attorney arguments. Attorney’s arguments and conclusory
statements that are unsupported by factual evidence are entitled to little
probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see
Appeal 2019-002555
Application 14/813,494

7
also In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984); Ex parte Belinne,
No. 2009-004693, 2009 WL 2477843, at *3–4 (BPAI Aug. 10, 2009)
(informative), available at
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/ip/boards/bpai/decisions/inform/fd0
9004693.pdf; see also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
The Examiner maintains that Appellant is relying upon a bodily
incorporation of the teachings of the two references rather than what it
would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention. Ans. 8. The Examiner maintains that providing another way of
representing human presence in a surveillance image that further abstracts
the identity of people is another means to improve the overall privacy of the
teachings already taught by Mummareddy, and as such is considered an
obvious teaching to combine with those of Mummareddy, especially as the
teachings of Mummareddy already are concerned with some level of
abstracting of human images to detect motion. Ans. 8.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant cites to the portions of the Mummareddy
reference relied upon by the Examiner in the Answer and generally contends
that the Mummareddy reference does not teach or render obvious the
claimed “generating a second foreground image” limitation. Reply Br. 5–8.
Appellant further reiterates that the combination of the teachings of the
Mummareddy and Elfving references could only have been improperly
gleaned from Appellant’s disclosure. Reply Br. 8.
Again, we find Appellant’s general arguments to be unavailing to
show error in the Examiner’s factual findings or conclusion of obviousness
of representative independent claim 1. Appellant sets forth separate
headings and repeats the similar arguments for independent claims 10–12.
Appeal 2019-002555
Application 14/813,494

8
Appeal Br. 17–26. Because we found Appellant’s arguments to be
unpersuasive with respect to representative independent claim 1, we find
Appellant’s arguments to be unpersuasive with respect to independent
claims 10–12. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Because Appellant has not
set forth separate arguments for patentability of dependent claims 3–9 and
13–16, these claims will fall with their respective independent claims.
Appeal Br. 17, 27; Reply Br. 10. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

Claim 2
Appellant sets forth separate arguments for patentability of dependent
claim 2. Appeal Br. 16–17. Appellant submits Mummareddy fails to teach
or disclose at least the recited changing the display form of at least one of
the first and second foreground images in such a manner that the confused
state is removed, and Mummareddy is merely concerned with coordinating
positions of multiple tracks (all of which are within the same foreground
image). Appeal Br. 16–17.
The Examiner merely quotes from columns 14–15 of the
Mummareddy reference and concludes that this clearly teaches a confusion
between the detected people in the captured images which is interpreted as
the second foreground image, and overlapping tracks in the track image,
which is interpreted as the first foreground image, and handling those in
such a manner that the confused state is removed. Ans. 9.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant contends Mummareddy’s coordination
of such positions is performed using weights and probabilities designed to
prevent a confused state (e.g., in the form of preventing multiple tracks from
Appeal 2019-002555
Application 14/813,494

9
converging to the same point), and not detecting a confused state as recited
in claim 2.
We may speculate that the Examiner is relying on the converging of
tracks to the same point in the Mummareddy reference, but we find no
express disclosure of a “confused state” which is detected as required by the
language of dependent claim 2. Nor has the Examiner expressly identified
that the Mummareddy reference teaches or suggests the claimed “changes
the display form of at least one of the first and second foreground images in
such a manner that the confused state is removed.”
Although the Examiner identifies that Mummareddy prevents multiple
tracks from converging to the same point, this processing does not
persuasively evidence the two steps of “detects” and “changes.”
Consequently, we agree with Appellant that the Mummareddy reference
does not teach or suggest the claimed “detects a confused state” and
“changes the display form . . . in a manner that the confused estate is
removed.”
As a result, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
dependent claim 2.

CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1 and 3–16 are
affirmed, but the obviousness rejection of claim 2 is reversed.
Appeal 2019-002555
Application 14/813,494

10
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–16 103 Mummareddy,
Elfving
1, 3–16 2

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED IN PART