Ex Parte Burke

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 26, 2016

12066639 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/066,639 06/09/2008 Trevor John Burke
23392 7590 03/01/2016
Foley & Lardner LLP
3000 K STREET N.W.
SUITE 600
WASHINGTON, DC 20007-5109
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.
097429-0230 2460
EXAMINER
MOREHEAD III, JOHN H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2664
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2016 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):
ipdocketing@foley.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TREVOR JOHN BURKE
Appeal2013-009816
Application 12/066,639
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHN A. EVANS, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
EV ANS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Non-Final Rejection of claims 1-24, which constitute all the
claims pending in this application. App. Br. 12, 16. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
WeREVERSK
1 The Appeal Brief identifies the applicant, Trevor John Burke, as the real
party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2013-009816
Application 12/066,639
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to a method of classifying video data representing
activity within a space to be monitored. See Abstract.
Claims 1, 15, 16, 17, 23, and 24 are independent. The claims have not
been argued separately and therefore stand or fall together. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). An understanding of the invention can be derived from a
reading of exemplary Claim 1, which is reproduced below with dispositive
disputed limitations italicized.
1. A method of classifying video data representing activity
within a space to be monitored, the method comprising:
receiving video data from a camera configured to
monitor the space;
receiving sensor data indicative of a condition occurring
within the space;
defining a plurality of programme elements within said
video data, each programme element having an associated
classification code selected using a plurality of samples of said
sensor data obtained by a sensor during a time period of
capture of the programme element by the camera;
storing video data representing said programme
elements; and
storing said classification codes associated with said
programme elements;
wherein said classification codes represent values on a
scale extending from a low value to a high value, said scale
representing relative activity within the space being monitored.
2
Appeal2013-009816
Application 12/066,639
References and Rejections
The Examiner relies upon the prior art as follows:
Nagaya
Vallone
US 2004/0247205 Al
US 7,847,820 B2
The claims stand rejected as follows: 2
Dec. 9, 2004
Dec. 7, 2010
1. Claims 1, 5, 6, 8-19, 23, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as obvious over Nagaya. Ans. 2-9.
2. Claims 2--4, 7, and 20-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Nagaya and Vallone. Ans. 10-12.
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed January 28, 2013, "App. Br."), the Reply
Brief (filed July 8, 2013, Reply Br."), the Examiner's Answer (mailed May
8, 2013, "Ans."), the Final Action (mailed July 31, 2012, "Final Act."), and
the Specification (filed March 12, 2008, "Spec.") for the respective details.
2 Based on Appellant's arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide the
appeal on the basis of claims as set forth below. See 37 C.F.R. §
41.37( c )(1 )(vii).
3
Appeal2013-009816
Application 12/066,639
We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1-24 in light of
Appellant's arguments that the Examiner has erred. We agree with
Appellant's conclusion.
CLAIMS 1, 5, 6, 8-19, 23, AND 24 OVERNAGAYA
Appellant argues independent Claims 1, 17, 23, and 24 as a group.
App. Br. 13. Each of the independent claims recites, in relevant portion:
"each programme element having an associated classification code".
Claims 1, 17, 23, and 24 stand rejected under 35 USC§ 103 as
obvious in view ofNagaya. The Examiner found "Classification codes as
defined by applicant are used to identify programme elements (video clips)"
Non-Final Act. 5. (emphasis omitted). The Examiner cites Nagaya as
disclosing the claimed "classification code" by disclosing "a DB [database]
recorder 700-2 which generates an ID (code) for each video clip". Id.
Appellant contends "Nagaya does not disclose a classification code
(associated with each programme element) selected using a plurality of
samples of sensor data during a time period of capture of the programme
element." App. Br. 14. (emphasis omitted). The Examiner responds,
"Classification codes as defined by applicant are used to identify programme
elements (video clips)." Ans. 3.
Appellant replies "A classification code is a manner for classifying
something in which the thing being classified is assigned to a category (e.g.,
in terms of level of activity within a space being monitored)." Reply Br. 5.
Appellant further contends, "[i]n contrast, Nagaya implements a mere ID
4
Appeal2013-009816
Application 12/066,639
code that does no classification." Appellant further contends, "As such, the
Examiner's interpretation of "classification code" would afford no weight to
the qualifier classification." Id.
We find the dispositive issue to be whether the disclosure ofNagaya
meets the claim limitation calling for 'each programme element having an
associated classification code' when the term 'classification' is accorded its
plain meaning. We find the plain meaning of the term 'classification' is
'arrangement according to some systematic division into classes or groups.'
See Classification, Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary,
Unabridged, 2nd Edition, 1983, page 334). Accordingly, a 'classification
code' is a code used for ''arrangement according to some systematic
division into classes or groups.'
We find Nagaya fails to disclose 'each programme element having an
associated classification code' when the term 'classification' is accorded this
plain meaning because N agaya fails to teach or suggest the disclosed
arrangement would systematically associate the same ID to more than one
corresponding video or sample portions so as to divide video and/or sample
portions into classes or groups.
Nagaya uses an ID code to link a portion of image data to a
corresponding portion of superimposed sensor data. Nagaya, i-f 32. Nagaya
teaches an ID is inserted into each frame of the image data. Nagaya, i-fi-136
and 58. Nagaya suggests allocating sufficient bits for an ID to avoid
overlapping. Nagaya, i-fi-151 and 52.
5
Appeal2013-009816
Application 12/066,639
Because the system disclosed by Nagaya is arranged to avoid
assigning the same ID to more than one corresponding video portion, the ID
disclosed by N agaya is not a disclosure of a code for 'arrangement according
to some systematic division into classes or groups.' Thus we find Nagaya
lacks disclosure of 'defining a plurality of programme elements within said
video data, each programme element having an associated classification
code'.
DECISION
The rejection of Claims 1-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is REVERSED.
REVERSED
6