Ex Parte Ackermann et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 8, 2016

13200898 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 8, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/200,898 10/04/2011 Mitch Ackermann
87059 7590 09/12/2016
Cantor Colburn LLP - Carrier
20 Church Street, 22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
PA0017936U/0148.0187 4607
EXAMINER
DANG,HUNGQ
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2484
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/12/2016 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):
usptopatentmail @cantorcolburn.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MITCH ACKERMANN, JEFFRY RATCLIFF, and
JEREMY SCHWARTZ
Appeal2015-005710
Application 13/200,898
Technology Center 2400
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
JON M. JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judges.
KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is UTC Fire and Security
Corporation (Br. 1 ).
Appeal2015-005710
Application 13/200,898
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Invention
Appellants' invention relates to a system and method for merging
timelines from diverse sources of recorded video (Spec. i-f 1 ).
Representative Claim
1. A video recording and playback network comprising:
a video source;
a plurality of recorders which simultaneously record, in
parallel, the same video from the video source, wherein the
plurality of recorders includes a first recorder storing a first time
interval of video at a first frame rate and a second recorder
storing a second time interval of video at a second frame rate,
wherein the first time interval is less than the second time interval
and the first frame rate is greater than the second frame rate;
a local server which generates a play list comprising one or
more ordered video segments which together cover a desired
time range of the video recorded from the video source, said
playlist associating one of the plurality of recorders with each
video segment; and
a client device which plays back the desired time range of
the recorded video according to the playlist by streaming each
video segment, in sequence, from the associated recorder.
The Examiner's Rejections
Claims 1, 7, 16, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Takahashi (US 2008/0228848 Al; published Sept.
18, 2008), Brannon, Jr. et al. (US 2007/0024706 Al; published Feb. 1,
2007), and Nishi et al. (US 2007 /0292110 Al; published Dec. 20, 2007)
(Ans. 2-10).
2
Appeal2015-005710
Application 13/200,898
Claims 2---6, 10, 11, 14, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Takahashi, Brannon, Nishi, and Kanojia
et al. (US 2012/0129479 Al; May 24, 2012) (Ans. 10-16).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Takahashi, Brannon, Nishi, Kanojia, and Yahata et al. (US
2009/0097821 Al; published Apr. 16, 2009) (Ans. 16-18).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Takahashi, Brannon, Nishi, Kanojia, and Koudo et al. (US
2009/0067535 Al; published Mar. 12, 2009) (Ans. 18).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Takahashi, Brannon, Nishi, Kanojia, Koudo, and Halbraich et al. (US
2009/0010277 Al; published Jan. 8, 2009) (Ans. 18-19).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Takahashi, Brannon, Nishi, Kanojia, and Takahashi et al. '282 (US
2010/0086282 Al; published Apr. 8, 2010) (Ans. 19-20).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments (Br. 5-10) that the Examiner erred. We disagree with
Appellants' contentions. We adopt as our own ( 1) the findings and reasons
set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final
Act. 3-21) and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's
Answer (Ans. 20-23) in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief. We concur
with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight and address
specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
3
Appeal2015-005710
Application 13/200,898
Issue 1: Under§ 103, did the Examiner err by finding Nishi teaches
storing first and second time intervals of video, wherein "the first time
interval is less than the second time interval," as recited in claim 1 ?2
Appellants contend Nishi teaches playback of video, which is a
different operation than the claimed storing of a first time interval of video
that is less than a second time interval of video (Br. 5---6). We are
unpersuaded of Examiner error in the rejection. We agree with the
Examiner's finding that Nishi teaches storing the first and second time
intervals of video in a play list, which is then used for playback of the video
segments having different time intervals (i.e., a first video segment of 60
seconds and a second video segment of 30 seconds) (Ans. 4 and 21 (citing
Nishi Fig. 24(b) and i-fi-126-27; see also i1200: video segments are stored on
a hard drive and in a buffer)).
Issue 2: Under§ 103, did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1
because there is no basis for the alleged rationale to combine Nishi with
Takahashi and Brannon of "accommodating video segments of different
lengths"?
Appellants contend neither Takahashi nor Brannon has a need to
handle video segments of different lengths, because Takahashi stores the
same video on all recorders, and Brannon simultaneously presents low
quality and high quality video streams from the same scene (Br. 6-7).
Appellants' contention does not persuade us of error in the rejection. We
2 Independent claims 10, 16, and 20 are argued on the same basis as
independent claim 1 (Br. 7-10), and separate patentability is not argued for
the dependent claims (id.). Except for our ultimate decision, these claims
are not discussed further.
4
Appeal2015-005710
Application 13/200,898
agree with the Examiner's finding that Takahashi teaches storing different
segments of video (i.e., video Al, A2, and A3) on a plurality of recorders
(i.e., recorder A, B, and C) (Ans. 2-3 and 22 (citing Takahashi Fig. 9 and
i-fi-1 81, 105) ). We also find the Examiner has provided "some articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness," specifically that a skilled artisan would recognize it is
conventional for the different video segments of Takahashi to have different
lengths (i.e., time intervals) as taught by Nishi (Ans. 22; see KSR Int'! v.
Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417-18 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d
977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006))).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Takahashi, Brannon,
and Nishi.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-21under35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
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
5