Ex Parte 7791501 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 23, 2015

90012425 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 2015)

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.
90/012,425 08/15/2012 7791501 013642.00008 4634
33649 7590 02/23/2015
Mr. Christopher John Rourk
Jackson Walker LLP
901 Main Street, Suite 6000
DALLAS, TX 75202
EXAMINER
ENGLAND, DAVID E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3992
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/23/2015 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

EDWARD D. IOLI TRUST
Patent Owner and Appellant
____________

Appeal 2015-001524
Reexamination Control 90/012,425
United States Patent 7,791,501 B2
Technology Center 3900
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Patent Owner appeals under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 306 the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4–17, and 21–32. Claims 3 and 18–20 have
been indicated as containing patentable subject matter. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 306. We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding arose from a request for ex parte reexamination filed
on August 8, 2012 of United States Patent 7,791,501 (“the ’501 patent”),
issued to Ioli on September 7, 2010.
Appeal 2015-001524
Reexamination Control 90/012,425
Patent US 7,791,501

2
The ‘501 patent describes a system for monitoring and tracking
vehicles in parking locations, roadways, etc. Specifically, a system
generates a vehicle license number from received vehicle image data that is
used, along with other data, to determine parking violations. See generally
Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reproduced below:

1. A method for monitoring vehicular activity using
electronic data processing equipment comprising:
receiving one set of image data of a plurality of vehicles
in an electronic format;
electronically extracting identifying feature data from the
image data;
transmitting the identifying feature data and first location
data to a tracking system;
comparing the identifying feature data with identifying
feature data obtained from a second location; and
generating an alert if the identifying feature data matches
the identifying feature data obtained from the second location.

RELATED PROCEEDING
This appeal is said to be related to Reexamination Control No.
90/012,419 for U.S. Patent 7,382,277 (“the ’277 patent”) that is the parent of
the patent involved in this appeal. App. Br. 3.1

1
Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection mailed
December 24, 2013 (“Fin. Rej.”); (2) the Appeal Brief filed June 24, 2014
(“App. Br.”); (3) the Examiner’s Answer mailed August 20, 2014 (“Ans.”);
and (4) the Reply Brief filed October 20, 2014 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2015-001524
Reexamination Control 90/012,425
Patent US 7,791,501

3
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 14, 16, 17, and 25 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Kielland (US 6,081,206; June 27, 2000).
Ans. 2; Fin. Rej. 22–29.
The Examiner rejected claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kielland. Ans. 2; Fin. Rej. 29–30.
The Examiner rejected claims 8–13, 21–24, 26, 28, and 30–32 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kielland and Kavner (US
2002/0140577 A1; Oct. 3, 2002). Ans. 2; Fin. Rej. 31–34.
The Examiner rejected claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kielland and Mehdipour (US 4,774,571; Sept. 27, 1988).
Ans. 2; Fin. Rej. 30–31.
The Examiner rejected claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kielland, Kavner, and Halina Kwasnicka & Bartosz
Wawrzyniak, License Plate Localization and Recognition in Camera
Pictures, AI-METH 2002 – Artificial Intelligence Methods (Nov. 13–15,
2002) (“Kwasnicka”). Ans. 2; Fin. Rej. 42–43.
The Examiner rejected claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kielland and Kwasnicka. Ans. 2; Fin. Rej. 43–45.

SUBSTANTIAL NEW QUESTION OF PATENTABILITY
Appellant argues that because Kielland is cumulative to Kavner
regarding receiving one set of image data of plural vehicles as claimed,
Kielland fails to present a substantial new question of patentability (SNQ).
App. Br. 6–13; Reply Br. 2–3. According to Appellant, the Office did not
Appeal 2015-001524
Reexamination Control 90/012,425
Patent US 7,791,501

4
clearly address the construction of the limitation directed to receiving one set
of image data of plural vehicles (“the receiving limitation”) in the present
reexamination proceeding. App. Br. 6–7. As such, it appeared to Appellant
when reexamination was ordered that the reason for the difference between
Kielland and Kavner with respect to the image data reception limitation was
the Office’s reliance on Kielland’s capturing images of each vehicle along a
patrol route—a feature that Kavner lacks. App. Br. 6–7.
Appellant’s understanding of this distinction, however, is said to have
changed when the Examiner in the Final Rejection in the parent ’277 patent
reexamination articulated a construction of “a set of image data” as all
images stored in a database—a construction that allegedly differs from that
applied during original prosecution and in granting the present
reexamination request. App. Br. 8–9. Appellant contends that a request for
reconsideration of the SNQ issue was presented in the present reexamination
proceeding in connection with arguments for claim 8 in the Request for
Reconsideration of the Examiner’s rejection filed February 24, 2014. App.
Br. 8. According to Appellant, the SNQ issue was raised properly in the
present proceeding via this reconsideration request, despite the construction
of the receiving limitation having only been later clarified in the Final
Rejection of the ’277 patent reexamination. App. Br. 8–9, 13; Reply Br. 2.

ISSUE
Has the Examiner erred by finding an SNQ based on Kielland? This
issue turns on whether Appellant preserved that issue for appeal by first
requesting reconsideration of the SNQ issue before the Examiner.
Appeal 2015-001524
Reexamination Control 90/012,425
Patent US 7,791,501

5

ANALYSIS
On this record, we find no error in the Examiner’s SNQ determination
based on Kielland. Notably, Appellant must first request reconsideration of
the SNQ issue before the Examiner before we can review that issue. MPEP
2274(VI). That was not done here, despite Appellant’s arguments to the
contrary. Although Appellant requested that the Examiner reconsider the
rejection in the request filed February 24, 2014, Appellant did not request
that the Examiner reconsider the SNQ. In fact, Appellant concedes that the
SNQ issue could have been identified more clearly in that request. App. Br.
9.
According to Appellant, the SNQ issue was raised before the
Examiner in the February 2014 request in the following argument pertaining
to claim 8: “[T]he Office has flip-flopped on its initial determination that
capturing images of individual cars at a park lot entry gate or toll road gate is
NOT generating a single set of image data of a plurality of vehicles, without
any basis or reasoning for doing so.” App. Br. 8 (quoting this argument).
This argument, however, fails to reasonably notify the Examiner that
the SNQ was challenged—let alone articulate a request to reconsider the
SNQ—for the Examiner to respond adequately to such a challenge before
appeal. At best, this argument challenges the propriety of the rejection, not
the SNQ—a distinct preliminary question preceding reexamination. See
MPEP 2242 (I). Despite Appellant’s later clarification of the Examiner’s
interpretation of the receiving limitation in the ’277 reexamination
proceeding, the fact remains that Appellant did not challenge the SNQ
Appeal 2015-001524
Reexamination Control 90/012,425
Patent US 7,791,501

6
adequately before the Examiner during prosecution to preserve that issue for
appeal. We reach this conclusion despite Appellant’s characterizing the
Examiner’s response in the Answer as allegedly not disagreeing with the
Patent Owner that the SNQ was raised properly in the February 2014
reconsideration request. Reply Br. 2. In short, this characterization does not
obviate the fact that no clear SNQ challenge was made to notify the
Examiner reasonably of such a challenge before appeal. Nor do we interpret
the Examiner’s response in the Answer as a tacit admission that such a
challenge was made before appeal.
For this reason alone, the SNQ issue is not before us. But even if it
were, Appellant does not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s findings that
Kielland’s relied-upon teachings are distinct from those of Kavner and,
therefore, not cumulative. See Ans. 9 (noting that, unlike Kavner, Kielland
takes two images of two separate vehicles parked on either side of the street
at the same time, i.e., one set of image data of plural vehicles). Therefore,
we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s SNQ determination based
on Kielland even if the issue were before us—which it is not.

THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION
The Examiner finds that Kielland discloses every recited element of
claim 1 including receiving one set of image data of plural vehicles in an
electronic format which is said to correspond to either (1) a database of
image data collected following a parking enforcement vehicle patrol, or (2)
taking two images of two separate vehicles on either side of a street at the
same time. Fin. Rej. 22–23; Ans. 5, 7–8, 10–14. According to the
Appeal 2015-001524
Reexamination Control 90/012,425
Patent US 7,791,501

7
Examiner, Kielland’s License Plate Recognition (LPR) extracts identifying
feature data electronically from the image data, and this feature data and first
location data is transmitted to a tracking system associated with the
database. Fin. Rej. 23; Ans. 15–16. The Examiner adds that Kielland
generates an alert (e.g., a parking violation alarm) if the identifying feature
data matches that obtained from a second location. Fin. Rej. 24; Ans. 17–
18.
Appellant argues that Kielland does not receive one set of image data
of plural vehicles as claimed, but rather processes each frame of image data
to generate a separate stand-alone record (“Epoch-ID”) stored in a database.
App. Br. 14–17; Reply Br. 3–6. According to Appellant, the Examiner’s
reliance on a group of these stand-alone records in Kielland’s database is
misplaced because such a “set of sets” is not one set of image data as
claimed, but rather plural sets. Reply Br. 3–6. Appellant adds that not only
does the Examiner not refute Lee Nelson’s declaration that Kielland fails to
disclose the receiving limitation, but the Examiner’s construction is
allegedly improper because it does not read on any embodiments of
Appellant’s patent and runs counter to Kielland’s use of the term “set.”
App. Br. 15–17.
Appellant also argues that Kielland does not extract identifying
feature data electronically from the image data as claimed because
Kielland’s database of Epoch-IDs (which is said to correspond to the recited
“set”) is formed after frames of image data are processed via LPR to form
each Epoch-ID. App. Br. 18. Appellant adds that Kielland does not transmit
identifying feature data and first location data to a tracking system, let alone
Appeal 2015-001524
Reexamination Control 90/012,425
Patent US 7,791,501

8
generate an alert if the identifying feature data matches that obtained from a
second location. App. Br. 18–19. Appellant argues other recited limitations
summarized below.

ISSUES
Under § 102, has the Examiner erred by finding that Kielland
discloses:
(1) (a) receiving one set of image data of plural vehicles in an
electronic format; (b) electronically extracting identifying feature data from
the image data; (c) transmitting the identifying feature data and first location
data to a tracking system; and (d) generating an alert if the identifying
feature data matches identifying feature data obtained from a second
location as recited in claim 1?
(2) comparing the identifying feature data with that obtained from a
second location is performed manually as recited in claim 4?
(3) the identifying, receiving, and extracting steps in claim 14?
(4) the one set of image data of the plural vehicles is generated by a
single monitor system at a single location as recited in claim 25?

ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 6, and 7
As noted above, the Examiner finds that the recited receiving one set
of image data of plural vehicles in an electronic format corresponds to either
(1) a database of image data collected following a parking enforcement
vehicle patrol, or (2) taking two images of two separate vehicles on either
Appeal 2015-001524
Reexamination Control 90/012,425
Patent US 7,791,501

9
side of a street at the same time. See Fin. Rej. 22–23; Ans. 5, 7–8, 10–14.
We see no error in the first alternative interpretation. First, nothing in the
claim precludes a database of image data for each vehicle obtained along a
patrol route in Kielland from constituting receiving one set of image data of
plural vehicles. In Kielland, an image of each vehicle is captured along a
patrol route, and the vehicle’s license plate text is extracted via LPR and
stored in a database record (“Epoch-ID”) that also contains the vehicle’s
observation time and location. Kielland, col. 6, l. 64 – col. 7, l. 11; col. 12,
ll. 22–30; col. 15, ll. 50–65; Fig. 5. The vehicle’s image can also be stored
as part of the Epoch-ID. Kielland, col. 14, ll. 14–17.
The Examiner acknowledges that each vehicle record in Kielland is
stored as part of a separate Epoch-ID—a stand-alone data record. Ans. 5
(agreeing with this statement from paragraph 3 of the Nelson declaration).
But even if Kielland’s Epoch-IDs each constitute an individual “set” of
image data as Appellant contends (App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 3), nothing in the
claim precludes a set of such individual sets of image data as in Kielland’s
database as the Examiner indicates. See Ans. 5 (considering a group of
Kielland’s stand-alone records as a set); Ans. 12 (noting that a database is a
group of data fields that can store image data and, therefore, is a set of such
data fields). That Appellant admits that term “set” is not used in Appellant’s
Specification (App. Br. 15) only bolsters the Examiner’s position that the
term “set” is not limited to a particular definition in the Specification and,
therefore, is fully met by Kielland’s database of image data even if this
image data set itself comprises individual sets of data. See Ans. 12–13.
Appeal 2015-001524
Reexamination Control 90/012,425
Patent US 7,791,501

10
Appellant’s arguments to the contrary are unavailing and not commensurate
with the scope of the claim.
Therefore, because we find the Examiner’s first interpretation of the
recited receiving limitation reasonable, we need not address the second,
alternative interpretation of that limitation.
Nor do we find error in the Examiner’s position that Kielland’s LPR
extracts identifying feature data electronically from the image data. As the
Examiner indicates, claim 1 does not recite extracting identifying feature
data from the set of image data, but rather just the image data. Ans. 15. As
such, Appellant’s contention that Kielland’s database of Epoch-IDs is
formed after frames of image data are processed via LPR to form each
Epoch-ID (App. Br. 18) does not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s position.
In short, nothing in the claim precludes the LPR-based extraction of
identifying feature data (license plate string) from the images themselves—
images that likewise are part of the image data as noted above. See
Kielland, col. 6, l. 67 – col. 7, l. 8; col. 14, ll. 14–17.
We also see no error in the Examiner’s finding that Kielland’s
entering the vehicles’ identifying feature data and location data into a
database, and the associated tracking functionality fully meets transmitting
the identifying feature data and first location data to a tracking system. Fin.
Rej. 23 (citing Kielland, Abstract; col. 7, ll. 5–22); Ans. 16. As the
Examiner indicates, the claim does not state the type of tracking achieved by
the tracking system, but only broadly recites a “tracking system” that does
not preclude various forms of tracking via Kielland’s system. Ans. 16.
Therefore, Appellant’s contention that Kielland does not disclose a tracking
Appeal 2015-001524
Reexamination Control 90/012,425
Patent US 7,791,501

11
system because it cannot track a moving vehicle (App. Br. 18 (citing Nelson
Decl. ¶ 6)) is unavailing and not commensurate with the scope of the claim
that does not require tracking moving vehicles. In any event, the Examiner’s
point that Kielland tracks vehicle location (Ans. 16) is well taken,
particularly in view of Kielland’s determining whether a vehicle has moved
an appreciable distance since its previous observation, and acting
accordingly. See Kielland, col. 16, ll. 5–15.
Nor do we find error in the Examiner’s position that Kielland
generates an alert (e.g., a parking violation alarm) if the identifying feature
data matches that obtained from a second location. Fin. Rej. 24 (citing
Kielland, col. 7, ll. 22–30). As shown in steps 508 through 514 of
Kielland’s Figure 5, a parking violation alarm is triggered if three conditions
are met: (1) a matching vehicle plate-string is found from a previous
observation; (2) the vehicle’s position is substantially the same; and (3) the
vehicle has parked longer than the permitted time limit. Kielland, col. 15, l.
66 – col. 16, l. 54. Notably, the second location from which the vehicle’s
identifying feature data is obtained is substantially the same as the first
location—it need not be exactly the same given distance and positional
tolerances. See Kielland, col. 16, ll. 15–33. Therefore, even assuming,
without deciding, that the recited first and second locations must be
different—a requirement that is not claimed—the above-noted vehicle
locations in Kielland are, in fact, different due to distance and positional
tolerances. See id.
Appellant’s attempt to distinguish identifying feature data obtained
from a second time versus a second location (App. Br. 19) is unavailing, for
Appeal 2015-001524
Reexamination Control 90/012,425
Patent US 7,791,501

12
this argument ignores Kielland’s considering both location and time when
matching the data to generate an alert as noted above and by the Examiner.
Ans. 17 (citing Kielland, col. 16, ll. 8–33). Nor does the claim preclude
Kielland’s additional temporal requirement to trigger the alert noted above,
particularly in light of the “comprising” language in the preamble that does
not exclude additional, unrecited elements. See Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron
Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“‘Comprising’ is a term of art
used in claim language which means that the named elements are essential,
but other elements may be added and still form a construct within the scope
of the claim.”) (citation omitted).
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1, and claims 2, 6, and 7 not argued separately with particularity.

Claim 4
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4 reciting that
comparing the identifying feature data with that obtained from a second
location is performed manually. The Examiner cites an officer’s verifying
license plate numbers visually as anticipating this manual comparison. Fin.
Rej. 25 (citing Kielland, col. 13, l. 67 – col. 14, l. 3). Although this visual
verification occurs after alert generation as Appellant indicates (App. Br.
19–20), the comparison in claim 4 need not be the same comparison in claim
1: rather, it could be an additional comparison because it lacks antecedent
basis to the comparison in claim 1 as the Examiner indicates. Ans. 18.
Nevertheless, even assuming, without deciding, that the comparison in
claim 4 is the same comparison as that recited in claim 1, nothing in the
Appeal 2015-001524
Reexamination Control 90/012,425
Patent US 7,791,501

13
claim precludes comparing the recited identifying feature data automatically
before generating an alert, and comparing that data manually after the alert.
Accordingly, the weight of the evidence on this record favors the
Examiner’s position.

Claims 14, 16, and 17
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 14 reciting, in
pertinent part, (1) identifying a set of locations for monitoring; (2) receiving
one set of image data of plural vehicles in an electronic format, each at a
first associated location; and (3) extracting identifying feature data from the
image data of one of the vehicles. Despite Appellant’s arguments to the
contrary (App. Br. 20–22), Appellant does not persuasively rebut the
Examiner’s position that the patrolling vehicle on subsequent patrols would
have identified a set of locations for monitoring by having the information
previously logged, and then receive one set of image data of plural vehicles
at a first associated location. Ans. 19–20 (citing Kielland, col. 21, ll. 36–
60).
Nor does Appellant persuasively rebut the Examiner’s position in the
Answer regarding the receiving and extracting steps that relies on the
position previously indicated regarding claim 1. See Ans. 20 (referring to
the Examiner’s response regarding claim 1). Although the Examiner’s
reliance on the claim 1 position in connection with the receiving and
extracting steps differs from that articulated on page 27 of the Final
Rejection that cites different passages from Kielland, we nonetheless find no
reversible error in the Examiner’s newer position articulated in the Answer.
Appeal 2015-001524
Reexamination Control 90/012,425
Patent US 7,791,501

14
Given this new position, Appellant’s arguments regarding the alleged
shortcomings of the Examiner’s combining the stationary and roadway
modes in connection with the originally-articulated position in the Final
Rejection for the receiving and extracting steps (App. Br. 20–22) do not
persuasively rebut the Examiner’s newer position based on Kielland’s
functionality articulated in connection with the claim 1 position in the
Answer. Accordingly, the weight of the evidence on this record favors the
Examiner’s position.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 14, and claims 16 and 17 not argued separately with particularity.

Claim 25
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 25 reciting that the
one set of image data of the plural vehicles is generated by a single monitor
system at a single location. Although the Examiner indicates that this single
location is a parking garage on page 29 of the Final Rejection, the Examiner
nonetheless broadens this interpretation of “a single location” to include a
street, block, or even a city where parking locations are present and the
monitoring system is used. Ans. 21. Based on this breadth, we see no error
in the Examiner’s equating a “single location” to at least the street and block
locations articulated in the Answer. Appellant’s arguments regarding the
alleged shortcomings of the Examiner’s reliance on a parking garage as
corresponding to the recited “single location” (App. Br. 22) do not
persuasively rebut the Examiner’s position articulated in the Answer.
Appeal 2015-001524
Reexamination Control 90/012,425
Patent US 7,791,501

15
Accordingly, the weight of the evidence on this record favors the
Examiner’s position.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER KIELLAND
We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 5 over
Kielland. Ans. 2, 21–23; Fin. Rej. 29–30. Although the Examiner
acknowledges that Kielland does not specifically discuss intersections along
parking enforcement patrol routes, we nonetheless see no error in the
Examiner’s conclusion that this feature would have been obvious,
particularly in view of various monitoring situations where parked vehicles
may be in the vicinity of an intersection. See Ans. 22–23 (interpreting
“intersection” as including corners and several feet from the corner).
Appellant’s contention that vehicles triggering Kielland’s proximity sensor
would not be parked at an intersection (App. Br. 22–23) does not
persuasively rebut the Examiner’s position in light of the Examiner
interpretation.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 5.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER KIELLAND AND KAVNER
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 8 over
Kielland and Kavner. Fin. Rej. 31–34; Ans. 2, 23–25. Claim 8 recites an
electronic data processing system for identifying vehicles by monitoring
traffic comprising (1) a monitoring system for receiving a single set of image
data of plural vehicles at a location and electronically generating vehicle
Appeal 2015-001524
Reexamination Control 90/012,425
Patent US 7,791,501

16
feature data from the image data, and (2) an enforcement system for
receiving the vehicle feature data, storing the vehicle feature data and
associated location data, and comparing the vehicle feature data with second
stored vehicle feature data.
Our emphasis above highlights key aspects of the claim language.
First, the term “for identifying vehicles by monitoring traffic” in the
preamble merely sets forth an intended use of the recited data processing
system. Cf. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Thus, the prior art need only be capable of performing this intended use,
namely identifying vehicles by monitoring traffic, to satisfy the claim. See
id.
Second, the recited “monitoring system” and “enforcement system”
are not recited in terms of their structure, but rather their function. Although
there is a strong presumption that § 112, sixth paragraph does not apply to
these systems because the term “means” is not recited, this presumption can
nonetheless be rebutted if skilled artisans, after reading the patent, would
conclude that the recited limitation is so devoid of structure that the drafter
constructively engaged in means-plus-function claiming. Williamson v.
Citrix Online, LLC, 770 F.3d 1371, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citations
omitted). That the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) Section
2181(A) lists the term “system for” as a non-structural generic substitute for
“means for” underscores the functional nature of the recited monitoring and
enforcement systems.
The Examiner does not indicate whether the recited monitoring and
enforcement systems were construed as equivalent to means-plus-function
Appeal 2015-001524
Reexamination Control 90/012,425
Patent US 7,791,501

17
limitations under § 112, sixth paragraph. See Fin. Rej. 31–34; Ans. 23–25.
Nevertheless, in attempting to construe these limitations, the Examiner cites
two passages from the application of the ’501 patent
2
that were cited by
Appellant in the Summary of the Claimed Subject Matter section of the
Appeal Brief in connection with these limitations. Ans. 23 (citing page 28,
lines 13–19 and page 9, line 32 to page 10, line 4 of the ’443 application).
According to Appellant, the first cited passage from the ’443
application’s page 28 corresponds to the recited “monitoring system,” and
the second cited passage from pages 9 and 10 of that application correspond
to the recited “enforcement system.” App. Br. 4. As the Examiner
indicates, the passage from page 28 does not mention traffic specifically, but
rather parking, and the passage from pages 9 and 10 pertains to a watch list.
Ans. 23–24. Notably, the Examiner requests clarification as to how to
interpret the claims in light of this disclosure. Ans. 24.
Despite the Examiner’s apparent difficulty in interpreting the recited
monitoring and enforcement system limitations, we nonetheless find no error
in the Examiner’s reliance on Kielland and Kavner for collectively at least
suggesting these limitations—even if they were interpreted as means-plus-
function limitations and, therefore, limited to the corresponding structure in
the Specification and its equivalents. See In re Donaldson Co., Inc., 16 F.3d
1189, 1193 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc).
First, for the reasons noted previously and those by the Examiner, we
see no error in the Examiner’s reliance on Kielland’s functionality pertaining

2
The’501 patent application is Serial No. 12/131,443, filed June 2, 2008
(“the ’443 application”).
Appeal 2015-001524
Reexamination Control 90/012,425
Patent US 7,791,501

18
to capturing images along a patrol route or a parking lot gate for at least
suggesting the recited “monitoring system.” See Fin. Rej. 33; Ans. 25.
Nor are we persuaded of error in the Examiner’s reliance on the
functionality associated with Kielland’s databases in Figures 8 and 10 as
well as the external databases associated with data link 56 for at least
suggesting the recited enforcement system. See Fin. Rej. 33–34 (describing
the “watch list” and “wanted list” functionality of these databases).
Appellant’s arguments regarding Kielland’s stationary system as not
disclosing the recited monitoring system for receiving a single set of plural
vehicles (App. Br. 23–24) do not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s reliance
on Kielland’s functionality in connection with storing vehicle feature data in
a database, particularly when considered in light of Kavner. See Ans. 24–25
(citing Kielland, col. 12, ll. 25–30).
That is, Appellant’s arguments regarding Kielland’s alleged
shortcomings in this regard do not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s
position that is not based on Kielland alone, but rather the collective
teachings of Kielland and Kavner as the Examiner indicates. Ans. 23 (citing
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981)). In short, we see no error in the
Examiner’s position that using Kielland’s monitoring system to monitor
traffic using multiple entry gates in light of Kavner at least suggests the
ability to receive a single set of image data of plural vehicles at a location.
Ans. 24.
On this record, then, we find no error in the Examiner’s reliance on
Kielland and Kavner for collectively teaching the recited monitoring and
enforcement systems even if they were construed as means-plus-function
Appeal 2015-001524
Reexamination Control 90/012,425
Patent US 7,791,501

19
limitations. We reach the same conclusion even if they were not so
construed, for the recited functionality of the monitoring and enforcement
systems is similar to that recited in connection with at least claim 1 with the
exception of identifying vehicles by monitoring traffic—an intended use
limitation that the Examiner finds is taught by both Kielland and Kavner.
See Fin. Rej. 32; Ans. 5–6, 24. Therefore, we see no error in the Examiner’s
reliance on Kielland and Kavner for teaching these limitations for the
reasons previously discussed.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 8, and claims 9–13, 21–24, 26, 28, and 30–32 not argued separately
with particularity.

THE OTHER OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS
We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of dependent
claims 15, 27, and 29. Ans. 2; Fin. Rej. 30–31, 42–45. Because Appellant
does not argue these rejections with particularity, we are not persuaded of
error in these rejections for the reasons previously discussed in connection
with their respective base claims.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting (1) claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 14, 16,
17, and 25 under § 102, and (2) claims 5, 8–13, 15, 21–24, and 26–32 under
§ 103.

Appeal 2015-001524
Reexamination Control 90/012,425
Patent US 7,791,501

20
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4–17, and 21–32 is
affirmed.
Requests for extensions of time in this ex parte reexamination
proceeding are governed by 37 C.F.R. § 1.550(c). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

tj

Third Party Requestor:

Mark S. Hubert
2300 SW First Avenue, Suite 101
Portland, Oregon 97201