Ex Parte Drive et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 12, 2017

12197656 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 12, 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.
12/197,656 08/25/2008 Marine Drive H0018775-4874/108088 2737
92556 7590
HONEYWELL/HUSCH
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O.Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
06/14/2017 EXAMINER
NAVAS JR, EDEMIO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2483
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/14/2017 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 MARINE DRIVE, DEEPAKUMAR SUBBIAN,
and SHANMUGAM SELVARAJAN
Appeal 2016-005841
Application 12/197,656
Technology Center 2400
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
WILLIAM M. FINK, Administrative Patent Judges.
FINK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 3—24.1 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claim 2 is cancelled.
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Honeywell
International, Inc. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-005841
Application 12/197,656
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants ’ Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to surveillance systems. Abstract.2
Specifically, Appellants’ invention is directed towards mapping a
surveillance sensor’s data stream to an operator station over a network. Id.
Claims on Appeal
Claims 1 and 14 are the independent claims on appeal.3 Claim 1 is
illustrative of Appellants’ invention and is reproduced below:
1. A surveillance system for monitoring a secure area,
the system comprising:
a plurality of surveillance devices that record respective
events occurring within the secure area where at least some of
the plurality of surveillance devices detect respective events
occurring within the secure area;
a respective first logic unit coupled to each of the
plurality of surveillance devices to generate a data stream
corresponding to the recorded video event, said first logic unit
incorporating the video events and a plurality of attributes into
the data stream where said plurality of attributes include at least
an identifier of a type of the event detected by the surveillance
device within the secure area and an access privilege for
viewing the event;
2 Our decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief, filed November 13, 2015
(“App. Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer mailed March 24, 2016 (“Ans.”);
Appellants’ Reply Brief filed May 16, 2015 (“Reply Br.”); the Final Office
Action mailed October 22, 2015 (“Final Act.”); and the original
Specification filed August 25, 2008 (“Spec.”).
3 We note that Appellants’ application was subject to a previous decision of
the Board in Case No. 2012-012014 mailed April 23, 2015. The claims on
appeal here were amended on May 4, 2015. See 5/4/2015 Amendment.
2
Appeal 2016-005841
Application 12/197,656
a respective transceiver in communication with each of
the plurality of surveillance devices for transmitting the data
stream over a network;
a second logic unit for receiving the data stream from
each of the plurality of surveillance devices and that assigns the
data stream to at least one of a plurality of device profiles based
upon the plurality of attributes of the data stream; and
a broadcast engine in communication with the second
logic unit that automatically maps the data stream of each of the
plurality of surveillance devices to at least one a plurality of
operator stations by matching the respective plurality of
attributes of each of the plurality of surveillance devices with a
device profile of at least one of the plurality of operator stations
and wherein the broadcast engine automatically routes and re­
routes the data streams of each of the plurality of surveillance
devices to the operator stations based upon the detected events
occurring within the secure area as defined by the plurality of
attributes of the surveillance device, the broadcast engine maps
at least one of the plurality of data streams alongside data
streams of other of the plurality of surveillance devices within
the device profile to at least some operator stations of the
plurality of operator stations.
Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1, 3—9, 11, 12, 14—20, 22, and 23 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wilson, Hudson, and Bock.
Ans. 2—12.
Evidence Considered
Hudson
Bock
Kimber
Wilson
Laskin
US 6,069,653
US 2002/0040926 A1
US 2008/0263592 A1
US 2008/0309759 A1
US 2009/0128365 A1
May 30, 2000
Apr. 11,2002
Oct. 23, 2008
Dec. 18, 2008
May 21,2009
3
Appeal 2016-005841
Application 12/197,656
Claims 10 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wilson, Hudson, Bock, and Laskin. Ans. 12—13.
Claims 13 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wilson, Hudson, Bock, and Kimber. Ans. 13—14.
Issue on Appeal
Based on Appellants’ arguments, the principal issue on appeal is
whether the combination of Wilson and Bock teaches or suggests a
“broadcast engine [that] automatically routes and re-routes the data streams
of each of the plurality of surveillance devices to the operator stations based
upon the detected events occurring within the secure area defined by the
plurality of attributes of the surveillance device,” as claim 1 recites. App.
Br. 8-11.
ANALYSIS
In disputing the Examiner’s findings, Appellants argue that Wilson
merely discloses recording surveillance video as triggered by security
events, which “is not the same as a ‘broadcast engine [that] automatically
routes and re-routes the data streams of each of the plurality of surveillance
devices to the operator stations based upon the detected events occurring
within the secure area as defined by the plurality of attributes of the
surveillance device’ (claim 1, lines 20-22). This feature is not disclosed by
Wilson et al., Hudson or Bock.” App. Br. 8—9; see also Reply Br. 2—3
(arguing Wilson’s data stream does not include Wilson’s surveillance
video).
We are not persuaded by this argument because it does not address the
Examiner’s findings regarding what the combination of Wilson, Hudson,
and Bock would have suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art. See
4
Appeal 2016-005841
Application 12/197,656
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425—26 (CCPA 1981) (“[0]ne cannot show non­
obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the
rejections are based on combinations of references.”).
Here, the Examiner finds that Wilson teaches surveillance devices
(i.e., video cameras) that record events and a first logic unit incorporating
the video event and a plurality of attributes including identification of the
camera and information regarding the type of the event into a data stream.
Ans. 3^4 (citing, e.g., Wilson || 16, 29, 34, Figs. 2, 5, and 6). The
Examiner finds, however, that the video data in Wilson is not necessarily
automatically rerouted to other operating stations (e.g., PC or set-top box).
Id. at 5—6 (citing Wilson 130). Therefore, the Examiner relies on Hudson as
teaching that upon a security event “video data from the respective cameras
may automatically be re-routed and displayed to a monitor [operator] within
the system.” Id. at 6 (citing Hudson, 2:20—34, 7:57—8:6). The Examiner
finds it would have been obvious to incorporate Hudson’s teaching of
automatically re-routing the video stream into Wilson’s data stream to
manage the information and more effectively identify the security event. Id.
(citing Hudson, 1:30—32).
Appellants do not address these findings regarding the combined
teachings of Wilson and Hudson.4 Upon review of the Examiner’s findings,
including those set forth above, and cites to the evidence of record, we find
4 To the extent that Appellants’ Reply Brief now disputes the Examiner’s
mapping of Wilson to the claims as set forth above and in the Examiner’s
Answer, we note the Examiner’s findings are not new but are substantially
set forth in the Final Action. See Final Act. 6—9. Therefore, because such
Reply arguments are new and not responsive to argument raised in the
Examiner’s Answer, they are not considered. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2).
5
Appeal 2016-005841
Application 12/197,656
the Examiner has demonstrated that the combination of Wilson and Hudson
teach or suggest the disputed limitation and has provided articulated
reasoning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness with respect to
Wilson, Hudson, and Bock. See KSR Intern. Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 418 (2007) (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
Appellants also argue that the Examiner failed to present a prima facie case
of obviousness. App. Br. 11—14. However, Appellants’ arguments are
substantially similar to those we disagree with above, namely that none of
Wilson, Hudson, or Bock individually teach or suggest the disputed
limitation. See id. at 13.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1 and 14, as well as dependent claims 3—9, 11, 12, 14—20, 22, and 23,
which are grouped for purposes of argument. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Regarding claims 10, 13, 21, and 24, rejected over the
combination of Wilson, Hudson, Bock, and either Faskin or Kimber,
Appellants present no arguments for separate patentability. We, therefore,
sustain the rejections of these claims as well.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 3—24.
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
6