Ex Parte Chathukutty et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 21, 2016

12255439 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/255,439 10/21/2008
92556 7590
HONEYWELL/HUSCH
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O.Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
09/23/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Silky Chathukutty
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.
H00019410/4874/108099 3340
EXAMINER
MA, WING
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2456
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 SILKY CHATHUKUTTY, CHAITHANY A HOLLA,
and JEETENDRA KUMAR MALLIREDDY
Appeal2015-003507
Application 12/255,439
Technology Center 2400
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
KAISER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1--4, 6-16, and 18, all of the pending claims. 2 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 3
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Honeywell
International, Inc. (App. Br. 2).
2 Claims 5 and 17 have been canceled. (App. Br. 14, 17).
3 We note that a January 26, 2015 "Communication Re: Appeal" purports to
dismiss this appeal for failing to pay the appeal forwarding fee. However,
we note that the appeal forwarding fee was timely paid on December 9,
2014, and thus, this appeal was properly docketed with the Board on
February 12, 2015.
Appeal2015-003507
Application 12/255,439
EXEMPLARY CLAIM
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter with disputed limitations emphasized:
1. A method for video surveillance in a system having a
plurality of cameras and a plurality of operators viewing video
from the plurality of cameras, comprising steps of:
creating a plurality of logical camera groups embodied on
a touch screen display of a control device, each group comprising
a list of at least one of the plurality of cameras and where the at
least one camera of each group is shown as a respective
pushbutton;
tracking a subject using a current camera; and
the control device changing from the current camera to a
next camera in response to an operator of the plurality of
operators of the system clicking on one of the respective
pushbuttons of the plurality of logical groups;
the control device displaying a list associated with the next
camera of operators of the plurality of operators available to
receive handover; and
the operator handing over the tracked subject to another
of the plurality of operators via selection of the other operator
from the list associated with the next camera,
wherein the control device provides the list of cameras in
the logical camera group on the touch screen display and the
next camera is selected by the operator from the list and wherein
the clicking displays the list of other operators of the plurality of
operators on the touch screen display for hand over of the
tracked subject.
REJECTION
The Examiner made the following rejection:
2
Appeal2015-003507
Application 12/255,439
Claims 1--4, 6-16, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Chin (US 7,777,783 Bl; issued Aug. 17, 2010),
Pinter (US 2006/0220796 Al; published Oct. 5, 2006), and Oya (US
6,208,379 Bl; issued Mar. 27, 2001). (Final Act. 3-8).
ISSUES
Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Chin,
Pinter, and Oya teaches or suggests:
the control device displaying a list associated with the next
camera of operators of the plurality of operators available to
receive handover; and the operator handing over the tracked
subject to another of the plurality of operators via selection of the
other operator from the list associated with the next camera,
wherein the control device provides the list of cameras in the
logical camera group on the touch screen display and the next
camera is selected by the operator from the list and wherein the
clicking displays the list of other operators of the plurality of
operators on the touch screen display for hand over of the tracked
subject,
as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 7 and 13?
Issue 2: Did the Examiner improperly combine the teachings and
suggestions of Chin, Pinter, and Oya?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants'
conclusions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Final Action (Final Act. 3-8) from which this appeal is
taken and the findings and reasons set forth in the Examiner's Answer in
3
Appeal2015-003507
Application 12/255,439
response to Appellants' Appeal Brief (Ans. 8-14). We highlight and address
specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
Issue 1
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Chin, Pinter, and Oya teaches or suggests:
the control device displaying a list associated with the next
camera of operators of the plurality of operators available to
receive handover; and the operator handing over the tracked
subject to another of the plurality of operators via selection of the
other operator from the list associated with the next camera,
wherein the control device provides the list of cameras in the
logical camera group on the touch screen display and the next
camera is selected by the operator from the list and wherein the
clicking displays the list of other operators of the plurality of
operators on the touch screen display for hand over of the tracked
subject,
as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 7 and 13. (App. Br. 8;
Reply Br. 2-5). Specifically, Appellants contend Chin "is merely directed to
a method of tracking a target among a number of cameras" (App. Br. 8).
Appellants further contend Pinter is "merely directed to sending video feeds
to other operators when a first operator ends his/her shift, needs a break,
etc." (Reply Br. 4 (citing Pinter i-fi-120-21)) and is "provided for testing and
enhancing the alertness of operators who monitor video surveillance
systems" (App. Br. 8 (citing Pinter Abstract); Reply Br. 2). Appellants
further contend Oya "merely discloses the display of access privileges of
camera operators." (App. Br. 8).
We are not persuaded because Appellants' contentions are not
responsive to the Examiner's rejection over the combination of Chin, Pinter,
and Oya. Appellants merely describe the alleged operation of the references
4
Appeal2015-003507
Application 12/255,439
and then assert in a conclusory fashion that the references do not teach the
disputed limitations. (See App. Br. 7; see also Reply Br. 2-5). Indeed, the
Examiner has set forth with specificity the basis of the rejection over the
combination of Chin, Pinter, and Oya. Accordingly, Appellants' arguments
are not sufficient to persuade us that the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Chin, Pinter, and Oya teaches or suggests the disputed
limitations, as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 7 and 13.
Issue 2
Appellants argue the Examiner improperly combined Chin, Pinter,
and Oya. (App. Br. 8-11; Reply Br. 6). Specifically, Appellants argue there
is "no reason to combine the references" because "none of the cited
references are directed to the problem solved by the claimed invention."
(App. Br. 11 ).
We are not persuaded because Appellants have not proffered
sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us the Examiner's reasoning is
in error. Appellants' arguments (see App. Br. 9-11; see also Reply Br. 6) do
not address the Examiner's rationale for combining Chin and Pinter-
allowing more human operators to provide surveillance to increase
"alertness, vigilance, and accuracy" and to prevent "financial damage as
well as physical danger" (Ans. 8; Final Act. 4--5}-or the Examiner's
rationale for combining Chin, Pinter, and Oya-"improv[ing] user
operability" and convenience (Ans. 9; Final Act. 5).
To the extent Appellants argue Chin, Pinter, and Oya are non-
analogous art because "none of the cited references are directed to the
problem solved by the claimed invention" (App. Br. 11 ), we agree with the
5
Appeal2015-003507
Application 12/255,439
Examiner's finding that Appellants' claimed invention, Chin, Pinter, and
Oya "are all in the same field of endeavor: video surveillance" (Ans. 14
(citing Chin 1: 10-25; Pinter i18; Oya 1 :5-9)). Innovention Toys, LLC v.
MGA Entm 't, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (stating that the
scope of analogous art includes art "from the same field of endeavor,
regardless of the problem addressed"). Appellants have not persuasively
responded to this finding (see Reply Br. 5---6).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner improperly
combined the teachings of Chin, Pinter, and Oya.
Remaining Claims
Appellants do not argue separate patentability for dependent claims 2-
4, 6, 8-12, 14--16, and 18, which depend directly or indirectly from claims 1,
7, and 13. (See App. Br. 8-11). For the reasons set forth above, therefore,
we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting these claims.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 2--4, 6, 8-12,
14--16, and 18. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1--4, 6-16, and 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chin, Pinter, and Oya is affirmed.
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