Ex Parte Coffland

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 29, 2007

10131550 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 29, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today is not binding
precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte DOUGLAS R. COFFLAND
____________

Appeal 2007-1743
Application 10/131,550
Technology Center 2100
____________

Decided: August 29, 2007
____________

Before LANCE LEONARD BARRY, JEAN R. HOMERE,
and JOHN A. JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
affirm.
Appeal 2007-1743
Application 10/131,550

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant invented a video surveillance system that allows
simultaneous viewing and control of video resource(s) by multiple viewers.
Specifically, the system comprises at least one video surveillance camera
and at least one monitoring station. The system utilizes a main control loop
that, among other things, initalizes the network and loads all configurable
features. The main loop also spawns independent threads of execution to
serve each communications connection. To this end, a single user control
loop executes in each thread spawned by the main control loop.1 Claim 1 is
illustrative:
1. A surveillance method, comprising the steps of:

directing a video surveillance camera for surveillance monitoring,

providing a digital network,

connecting a computer to said video surveillance camera and said
digital network,

providing a first software loop that performs main control functions
including initializing a network, loading configurable features, and starting
subsequent software control loops for single user control that execute in
separate threads,

providing subsequent software loops that perform single user control
functions including executing associated features, and

providing a system for connection initialization.

1 See generally Specification ¶¶ 0022-26.
2
Appeal 2007-1743
Application 10/131,550

The Examiner relies on the following prior art references to show
unpatentability:
Baker US 5,583,561 Dec. 10, 1996
Ueda US 5,815,194 Sep. 29, 1998
McDougall US 5,999,966 Dec. 7, 1999
Vaios US 6,271,752 B1 Aug. 7, 2001

1. Claims 1, 2, 4-8, 10-14, and 16-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over McDougall and Vaios.
2. Claims 3, 9, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over McDougall , Vaios, Baker, and Ueda.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the Examiner, we
refer to the Briefs and the Answer for their respective details. In this
decision, we have considered only those arguments actually made by
Appellant. Arguments which Appellant could have made but did not make
in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

OPINION
Claims 1, 2, 4-8, 10-14, and 16-18
We first consider the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-8, 10-14,
and 16-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over McDougall in view
of Vaios. In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon
the Examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598
3
Appeal 2007-1743
Application 10/131,550

(Fed. Cir. 1988). In so doing, the Examiner must make the factual
determinations set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 148
USPQ 459, 467 (1966).
Discussing the question of obviousness of a patent that claims a
combination of known elements, KSR Int’l v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727,
82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) explains:
When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it,
either in the same field or a different one. If a person of
ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, §103
likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique
has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary
skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar
devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless
its actual application is beyond his or her skill. Sakraida [v. AG
Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 189 USPQ 449 (1976)] and
Anderson's-Black Rock[, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co.,
396 U.S. 57, 163 USPQ 673 (1969)] are illustrative—a court
must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable
use of prior art elements according to their established
functions.
KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. If the claimed subject matter
cannot be fairly characterized as involving the simple substitution of one
known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to
a piece of prior art ready for the improvement, a holding of obviousness can
be based on a showing that “there was an apparent reason to combine the
known elements in the fashion claimed.” Id., 127 S. Ct. at 1740-41,
82 USPQ2d at 1396. Such a showing requires “some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. . . . [H]owever, the analysis need not seek out precise teachings
4
Appeal 2007-1743
Application 10/131,550

directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court
can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id., 127 S. Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d
at 1396 (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336
(Fed. Cir. 2006)).
If the Examiner’s burden is met, the burden then shifts to the
Appellant to overcome the prima facie case with argument and/or evidence.
Obviousness is then determined on the basis of the evidence as a whole and
the relative persuasiveness of the arguments. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Regarding representative claim 1,2 the Examiner's rejection
essentially finds that McDougall teaches a method including, among other
things, connecting a computer to a video camera and a digital network and
providing the recited software loops. The Examiner notes that McDougall
discloses every claimed feature except for using McDougall’s system for
surveillance purposes. The Examiner cites Vaios as teaching such a video
surveillance system and concludes that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify McDougall’s
system for use as a surveillance system (Answer 3-5).
Appellant argues that McDougall pertains to video conferencing
which allows for at least two locations to interact via two-way audio and
video transmissions simultaneously. According to Appellant, unlike
McDougall, the claimed video surveillance system monitors areas for

2 Appellant argues claims 1, 2, 4-8, 10-14, and 16-18 together as a group.
See Br. 12-18. Accordingly, we select claim 1 as representative. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
5
Appeal 2007-1743
Application 10/131,550

possible intruders that may appear on a random basis (Br. 13). Appellant
adds that various claimed elements are not found in either McDougall or
Vaios (Br. 14-18; Reply Br. 6).
Appellant further argues that it would not have been obvious to
combine McDougall with Vaios as the Examiner contends. According to
Appellant, there is no reason or teaching to use Vaios’ video camera having
a motion sensor as part of the McDougall’s video conference system (Br. 16-
17). Appellant further contends that Vaios’ video phone system is not the
same as McDougall’s video conference system (Reply Br. 3-5).
The Examiner notes that combining Vaios with McDougall would
have been obvious to the skilled artisan since Vaios not only discloses a
security surveillance system, but the reference teaches that such a
surveillance system can be configured in other ways including, among other
things, facilitating videophone calls. Thus, the Examiner argues, Vaios
suggests using the security system for videoconferencing purposes (Answer
10).
We will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1.
McDougall discloses a video conferencing system that allows a particular
participant (hereafter “control participant”) to remotely establish and direct a
video conference for a number of participants3 through a control system 5
that resides on the control participant’s computer 121. The control system is

3 See terminals 121-12n in Fig. 1. Each participant’s terminal includes (1) a
video conferencing application and (2) video and audio generating means
(e.g., a camera and microphone) (McDougall, col. 5, l. 67 - col. 6, l. 5).
Moreover, as shown Figure 1, one participant’s computer, 121, comprises the
control system 5 that is connected to remote video conferencing switch 14
via the control network 20 (McDougall, col. 6, ll. 16-20; Fig. 1).
6
Appeal 2007-1743
Application 10/131,550

connected to a control network 20 that is separate from the network 18 that
sustains the conference. Using the control network, control signals are
conveyed from the control participant’s computer to a remote switching
system 14 comprising a host machine. In response to the control signals, the
host machine generates signals that cause the switch to engage and direct a
video conference sustained on conference network 18 among the various
participants (McDougall, abstract; col. 8, ll. 8-27; Figs. 1, 2).
We find that McDougall amply discloses the claimed limitations. As
an initial matter, we note that the plain meaning of the term “surveillance” as
claimed is quite broad and does not preclude the video conferencing
capability of McDougall. “Surveillance” is defined, in pertinent part, as
“[t]he act of observing or the condition of being observed.”4 Participating in
a video conference would certainly enable participants to observe each
other; indeed, that is the very function of a video conference. Simply put,
the very act of participants viewing each other via McDougall’s video
conference system involves video “surveillance” giving the term its broadest
reasonable interpretation.
We also find that McDougall’s host machine initialization and idle
loop functionality fully meets the claimed software loops. As shown in
Figure 30, the host machine provides a first loop which is primarily defined
by the “Event” decision box and includes various preliminary initialization
and feature loading functions. Such functionality not only initializes a
network, loads configurable features, and provides a system for connection

4 The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th ed., 2000,
available at http://www.bartleby.com/61/6/S0920600.html (last visited Aug.
17, 2007).
7
Appeal 2007-1743
Application 10/131,550

initialization as claimed, but also provides subsequent software loops that
perform “single user control functions.”
As Figure 30 illustrates, six different host machine event handling
functions follow the first “Event” loop.5 Significantly, all of these functions
loop back to the “Event” decision box upon completion. Thus, each host
machine event handling function, in effect, comprises a distinct loop
subsequent to the first “Event” loop. Moreover, each subsequent loop, at
least in part, performs “single user control functions” since a single user
(i.e., the control participant) ultimately controls the video conference and,
likewise, the functionality of the host machine.
Thus, we find that McDougall alone amply discloses all limitations of
representative claim 1. Accordingly, Appellant has not persuasively
rebutted the Examiner’s prima facie case obviousness based on the
collective teachings of the cited references for that reason alone.6
Nevertheless, we find the Examiner’s reliance on the teachings of
Vaios reasonable and readily combinable with McDougall. First, Vaios
generally teaches that multiple users can use a network to communicate with
a computer 12 and camera 10 connected thereto that is located in a security
surveillance area (Vaios, abstract; col. 3, ll. 14-36; Fig. 1). Moreover, each

5 These host machine functions include handling of (1) timer events (Fig.
36); (2) command events; (3) CODEC messages (Fig. 34); (4) CODEC
connection events (Fig. 35); (5) control system message events (Figs. 31-
33); and (6) control system connection events (Fig. 37). See McDougall,
col. 19, ll. 8-33.
6 See In re Meyer, 599 F.2d 1026, 1031, 202 USPQ 175, 179 (CCPA 1979)
(noting that obviousness rejections can be based on references that happen to
anticipate the claimed subject matter).
8
Appeal 2007-1743
Application 10/131,550

computer located at the respective end user locations 8 can comprise the
same hardware and software as the computer system in the security
surveillance area such that the remote computer systems can likewise be
employed as a surveillance area (Vaios, col. 4, ll. 15-29).
With this general teaching, we see no reason why at least one of the
participant terminals with cameras in McDougall could not be so designated
a “security surveillance area” or, at the very least, McDougall’s system
otherwise used for surveillance monitoring of particular participants or their
surroundings.
Furthermore, Vaios expressly states that the video surveillance system
can be implemented according to H.323 and other videoconferencing
standards (Vaios, col. 9, ll. 45-48) (emphasis added). Certainly, by
employing such standards, the skilled artisan would readily infer that Vaios’
video system would at least be capable of videoconferencing purposes. For
this reason alone, the teachings of Vaios are readily applicable to the video
conferencing system of McDougall.
But Vaios does not stop there. Vaios teaches that the system can be
used for various purposes including, among other things, monitoring a
conference room or a computer terminal (Vaios, col. 9, ll. 49-53) (emphasis
added). Certainly, McDougall’s system is readily capable of such
monitoring purposes. The cameras located at various participant terminals
in McDougall could readily monitor a conference room or computer
terminal if so employed.
With this in mind, even if we assume for the sake of argument that
McDougall somehow does not disclose “surveillance” monitoring of these
9
Appeal 2007-1743
Application 10/131,550

locations,7 the skilled artisan would nonetheless readily glean from Vaios
that such surveillance monitoring would have been, at the very least, an
obvious alternative to using the system for video conferencing.
For at least these reasons, we find that it would have been obvious to
the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to combine Vaios with
McDougall.
Lastly, we note that Appellant has not persuasively rebutted the
Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness of representative claim 1 for yet
another reason. In the Briefs, Appellant merely alleges that the cited prior
art lacks various enumerated limitations found in the independent claims.
Although these specific limitations are listed on Pages 14-17 of the Brief and
Page 6 of the Reply Brief, there is no specific supporting analysis explaining
why these specific limitations are not taught or suggested by the references
apart from a mere conclusory assertion. Such conclusory statements,
however, hardly persuasively rebut the Examiner’s prima facie case of
obviousness.8

7 We emphasize that we are merely assuming this position solely for the sake
of argument. As we indicated previously, we find that McDougall amply
discloses video “surveillance” giving the term its broadest reasonable
interpretation. See P. 7, supra, of this opinion.
8 See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (“A statement which merely points out
what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate
patentability of the claim.”); see also 37 C.F.R. § 1.111 (noting that replies
to Office actions must specifically point out how the claim language
patentably distinguishes from the cited references); In re Baxter Travenol
Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391, 21 USPQ2d 1281, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ("It is not
the function of [the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit] to
examine the claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for
nonobvious distinctions over the prior art.”).
10
Appeal 2007-1743
Application 10/131,550

For the foregoing reasons, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
representative claim 1 and claims 2, 4-8, 10-14, and 16-18 which fall with
claim 1.

Claims 3, 9, and 15
We now consider the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 9, and 15
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over McDougall in view of Vaios,
Baker, and further in view of Ueda. Regarding representative claim 3,9 the
Examiner’s rejection essentially finds that the prior art discloses every
claimed feature except for the six recited functions of the first software loop,
but cites two references to show that such features would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Specifically, the Examiner cites Baker as teaching four of the recited
functions: (1) calling a “StartCapture” feature to capture video frames; (2)
creating a Multicast session object; (3) creating a data key for receiving
video; and (4) establishing a multicast session for transmitting secure
multicast video. The Examiner adds that Ueda teaches the other two recited
functions, namely (1) starting network services, and (2) waiting for
connection requests. The Examiner concludes that the skilled artisan would
have combined these teachings with McDougall and Vaios to, among other
things, improve security (Answer 8-9, 16).

9 Appellant argues claims 3, 9, and 15 together as a group. See Br. 19-21.
Accordingly, we select claim 3 as representative. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
11
Appeal 2007-1743
Application 10/131,550

Appellant argues that neither Baker nor Ueda -- references which
pertain to television video-on-demand system -- show the limitations of
representative claim 3 (Br. 19-20). Nor would it be obvious, Appellant
contends, to combine the four references since they are from different
technologies (i.e., video-on-demand, video conferencing, and remotely-
accessible monitoring systems) (Br. 20-21; Reply Br. 7-8).
We will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 3.
First, regarding the alleged failure of Baker or Ueda to disclose the claimed
limitations, Appellant has simply not persuasively rebutted the Examiner’s
findings in this regard. As we indicated previously, mere conclusory
assertions that the references fail to disclose enumerated limitations without
specific supporting analysis of why the references fail in this regard does not
persuasively rebut the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness relying
on such teachings.10
Secondly, we find that the skilled artisan would have ample reason on
this record to combine the respective teachings of Baker and Ueda with the
other references. In short, Baker and Ueda constitute analogous art. Both
references pertain to distributing video over a network -- a field of endeavor
that is commensurate not only with the claimed invention, but also
McDougall and Vaios. Moreover, such technologies that distribute video
over a network would have been reasonably pertinent to problems
encountered in network-based video surveillance systems such as the
claimed invention.

10 See P. 10, supra, of this opinion.
12
Appeal 2007-1743
Application 10/131,550

Moreover, both McDougall and Vaios both disclose distributing video
to multiple users (i.e., multicasting the video). Although we find that
McDougall itself suggests performing each of the recited functions at least
generally in the first software loop,11 executing these specific functions in
light of the teachings of Ueda and Baker would have likewise been obvious
to the skilled artisan to ensure efficient and timely execution of the video
distribution function.
For at least these reasons, Appellant has not persuasively rebutted the
Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness of representative claim 3 based
on the collective teachings of the references. We will therefore sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 3 and claims 9 and 15 which fall with claim 3.

DECISION
We have sustained the Examiner's rejections with respect to all claims
on appeal. Therefore, the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-18 is
affirmed.

11 For example, McDougall’s teaching of initiating a conference in either the
“video follows audio” mode or the “continuous presence” mode would, at
least implicitly, suggest calling a feature equivalent to a “StartCapture”
feature, establishing multicast functionality of such video to the multiple
participants in the conference, creating a data “key” for respective
conference participants to receive video, and waiting for connection
requests. See generally McDougall, col. 2, ll. 34-col. 3, l. 53; col. 11, ll. 12-
37; Fig. 6A.
13
Appeal 2007-1743
Application 10/131,550

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

pgc

Eddie E. Scott
Assistant Laboratory Counsel
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
P.O. Box 808, L-703
Livermore, CA 94551
14