Ex Parte Addy

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 21, 2016

10733727 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
10/733,727 12/11/2003
92556 7590
HONEYWELL/HUSCH
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O.Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
09/23/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Kenneth L. Addy
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.
H0006399/4874/l 07934 8574
EXAMINER
DIEP, NHON THANH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2487
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/23/2016 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):
patentservices-us@honeywell.com
amy.hammer@huschblackwell.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 KENNETH L. ADDY
Appeal2015-004069
Application No. 10/733,7271
Technology Center 2400
Before MARC S. HOFF, CATHERINE SHIANG,
MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellant's invention is a security system including intrusion security
sensors provided on the perimeter of a protected space and wireless RF,
battery operated, low current drain video cameras elsewhere in the protected
space. Each video camera is capable of operating in a standby inactive video
mode having low electrical power consumption, or in an active video
1 The real party in interest is Honeywell International, Inc.
Appeal2015-004069
Application No. 10/733,727
recording mode. Upon detection of an alarm event by a security sensor, the
security sensor transmits an RF security/alarm event message, causing the
security system video cameras to awaken from standby inactive video mode
into the active video recording mode. See Abstract.
Claim 1 is exemplary of the claims on appeal:
1. A security system comprising:
a security system control panel;
a plurality of battery operated security video cameras, each having an
RF receiver and operating in a standby inactive video mode, providing
a low electrical power consumption, or in an active video recording
mode that consumes a greater amount of electrical power;
a plurality of security sensors for detecting a security/alarm event,
each located elsewhere with respect to the plurality of video cameras
and each having an RF transmitter for transmitting an RF
security/alarm event message indicating detection of a security/alarm
event;
wherein an alarm event detected by a security sensor of the security
system causes the security sensor to immediately activate the security
system cameras by transmitting an RF security/alarm event initiating
message to the security system cameras which causes the security
system video cameras to awaken from the standby inactive video
mode into the active video recording mode and collect pre-alarm
video and wherein the initiating message is also received by the
security system control panel for processing.
2
Appeal2015-004069
Application No. 10/733,727
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Naidoo et al.
Kanayama et al.
Stuart
US 6,658,091 Bl
US 2005/0154598 Al
US 7,012,523 B2
Dec. 2, 2003
July 14, 2005
Mar. 14, 2006
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kanayama, Stuart, and Naidoo.
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
("App. Br.," filed Sep. 17, 2014), the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Feb.
19, 2015), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Jan. 28, 2014) for
their respective details.
ISSUE
Does Kanayama disclose or suggest, in response to a detected alarm
event, a security sensor immediately transmitting an RF security/alarm event
initiating message to the security system cameras which causes the security
system cameras to awaken from the standby inactive state into the active
video recording mode and collect pre-alarm video?
ANALYSIS
Appellant's argument that Kanayama fails to disclose or suggest
"wherein an alarm event detected by a security sensor of the security system
causes the security sensor to immediately activate the security system
cameras by transmitting an RF security/alarm event initiating message to the
security system cameras" is not persuasive to show Examiner error in the
rejection. See App. Br. 6. Appellant contends that Kanayama transmits alarm
3
Appeal2015-004069
Application No. 10/733,727
messages to the security service manager terminal, rather than the cameras.
Id.
We do not agree that Kanayama does not teach corresponding
functions. We agree with the Examiner's finding that Kanayama discloses
that "trespasser sensor 12b is activated around the clock; upon detection of
an abnormality, it sends a detection signal to the sensor control section 21 to
request that the security camera 12a start operating." Ans. 2, 7; Kanayama i-f
104. "The sensor control section 21, as it receives the operation start request
for the security camera 12a from the trespasser sensor 12b (S211 ), sends a
camera image capture instruction to the security camera 12a (S212). In
accordance with the instruction, the security camera 12a starts image
capturing and sends captured camera images." Kanayama i-f 105. We agree
with the Examiner that the claims do not require transmission of the event
initiating message directly to the security system cameras without
transmission to any intermediate devices. Ans. 7.
Appellant's contention that the claim term "immediately" does not
allow for delay associated with relaying the initiating message through an
intermediate device is also unpersuasive. See Reply Br. 3. Appellant has not
cited to any portion of the Specification indicating a specific amount of time
corresponding to the word "immediately." Appellant has provided no
evidence that Kanayama does not function to transmit starting instructions to
its cameras "immediately" within the plain and ordinary meaning of the
term.
We find that the combination of Kanayama, Stuart, and Naidoo
teaches all the elements of claims 1-20. We sustain the Examiner's 35
U.S.C. § 103 rejection.
4
Appeal2015-004069
Application No. 10/733,727
CONCLUSION
Kanayama teaches, in response to a detected alarm event, a security
sensor immediately transmitting an RF security/alarm event initiating
message to the security system cameras which causes the security system
cameras to awaken from the standby inactive state into the active video
recording mode and collect pre-alarm video.
ORDER
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5