Ex Parte Galvez et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 22, 2019

13965833 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 22, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/965,833 08/13/2013
103122 7590 05/24/2019
HoustonHogle LLP
Joseph Houston, HoustonHogle LLP
1666 Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 12
Lexington, MA 02420
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Miguel Galvez
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.
0270.0030US1/R-SN-00213US 8731
EXAMINER
BROWN JR, HOW ARDD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2488
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/24/2019 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):
docketing@houstonllp.com
grant.houston@houstonllp.com
eleahy@tycoint.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MIGUEL GALVEZ, ABRA Y RAJAN,
and KAPANG LAM
Appeal 2018-007141 1
Application 13/965,833
Technology Center 2400
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-28. App. Br. 2. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm-in-part.
1 Sensormatic Electronics, LLC is identified as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-007141
Application 13/965,833
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' disclosure relates to a "system and method for operating a
network security system implementing security cameras, motion sensors,
access control systems, security door locks, and mobile panic button devices
within a monitored area." Abstract. Claims 1, 13, and 26 are independent;
claim 1 is reproduced below for reference (with emphases added):
1. A security system comprising:
one or more security cameras that capture image data;
a network video recorder for storing and distributing the
image data from the security cameras; and
a security control system that receives position
information from mobile user devices and provides access to the
image data at the mobile user devices based on the position
information relative to locations of alarm conditions; wherein the
security control system provides access to the image data to the
mobile user devices of security personnel that are in closest
proximity to the locations of the alarm conditions.
The Examiner's Rejections
Claims 1, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 18, 19, 22, 27, and 28 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (US 2014/0267745 Al;
Sept. 18, 2014), Prasad (US 2014/0075514 Al; Mar. 13, 2014), and Green
(US 2012/0282974 Al; Nov. 8, 2012). Final Act. 4. 2
Claims 2-5 and 14--17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Martin, Prasad, Green, and Zampieron (US 2009/020724 7
Al; Aug. 20, 2009). Final Act. 10.
2 The heading of the rejection omits reference to claim 28, but this claim is
included in the body of the rejection. See Final Act. 10.
2
Appeal 2018-007141
Application 13/965,833
Claims 8, 9, 20, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Martin, Prasad, Green, and Hess (US 2012/0286951 Al;
Nov. 15, 2012). Final Act. 14.
Claims 12 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Martin, Prasad, Green, and Nam (US 2012/0002056 Al;
Jan. 5, 2012). Final Act. 15.
Claims 24 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Martin, Prasad, Green, and Martin (US 2013/0135467 Al;
May 30, 2013) ("Martin II"). Final Act. 16.
Claim 26 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Martin, Prasad, Zampieron, Hess, and Nam. Final Act. 18.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
arguments. We have considered in this Decision only those arguments
Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellants
could have made but chose not to make are deemed waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). Except where noted, we are not persuaded the Examiner
erred, and we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner to the extent consistent with our analysis below.
A. Claim 1
Appellants contend claim 1 is "distinguishable over Martin, Prasad,
and Green," because "[ s Jpecific claimed features are missing from these
applied references." App. Br. 6. First, Appellants argue the Examiner errs
because "according to Green, 'an alert message can be sent directly to all
users of the mobile user device application,"' whereas "the present claimed
3
Appeal 2018-007141
Application 13/965,833
invention communicates with the security personnel that are in closest
proximity to the locations of the alarm conditions." App. Br. 9. Second,
Appellants contend that "Green merely provides for 'alert messages,' ...
whereas the present invention provides much more informative 'image
data'." App. Br. 9. Third, Appellants contend that "there appears to be no
clear teaching of the Prasad handheld devices reporting position to the
Prasad server." App. Br. 10 (citing Prasad ,r,r 39, 38.)
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. First, the claimed
"provid[ing] access to the image data to the mobile user devices of security
personnel that are in closest proximity to the locations of the alarm
conditions" is taught by Green's transmission of alert messages to all
security personnel. See Final Act. 6; Green ,r 77. That is, Green teaches
transmitting alert messages to personnel that are in closest proximity of the
alarm, as claimed, as well as to additional users. 3
Second, Appellants' statement that Green only supplies "alert
messages" is contradicted by Green's teachings that "[s]treaming [v]ideo [is]
sent to each mobile device for live viewing." Green Fig. 1; see also Green
,r 48 ( describing Fig. 1 ), and ,r 83.
Third, we are not persuaded Prasad fails to teach the claimed position
information reported from the mobile user devices, as Prasad uses "[a]n
association table [that] associates a set of assets and a set of personnel,
3 Claim 1 recites the open-ended term "comprising," which means that the
named elements are essential, but other elements may be added and still
form a construct within the scope of the claim. See Genentech, Inc. v.
Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Additionally, compare
dependent claims 27 and 28 ( each reciting "only") with claim 1. See MPEP
§ 608.0l(n) ("[A] dependent claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d)
if it ... fails to add a limitation to the claim upon which it depends.")
4
Appeal 2018-007141
Application 13/965,833
allowing for visitor tracking and asset tracking on a schedule." Prasad
Abstract; see also Final Act. 3, 5---6; Prasad ,r,r 13 (describing handheld
device location stack tables and the synchronization of databases), 55.
Prasad's teaching of position reporting is further supported by the portion of
Prasad cited by the Appellants. See App. Br. 10. This portion teaches that
"the Global Positioning System" may be used, and further states as follows:
At step 410, a geographic map is analyzed and access points are
identified. The server then assigns each handheld device to a
physical location and receives acknowledgement from each
handheld device that it is positioned at the location
Prasad ,r 39 ( emphasis added). One of ordinary skill in the art would
understand the received acknowledgement of location teaches or suggests
receiving "position information," as claimed.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of independent claim
1, and independent claim 13 commensurate in scope and not argued
separately, as well as dependent claims 2, 4--12, 16-25 not argued
separately. See App. Br. 5-12.
B. Claims 2 7 and 2 8
Similar to claim 1 as discussed above, Appellants argue that Green
supplies an alert message to all users, and thus does not teach or suggest the
limitations of dependent claims 27 and 28. Particularly, Appellants argue
the following:
[ c ]laim 27 further provides that the security control system only
provides access to the image data to the mobile user devices of
security personnel or first responders who are in proximity to
the locations of the alarm conditions. New claim 28 provides
similar language.
5
Appeal 2018-007141
Application 13/965,833
App. Br. 9.
We agree with Appellants. Claim 27 recites the system "only
provides access" to those "who are in proximity to the locations of alarm
condition" and claim 28 requires that access is provided "only to the mobile
user devices of security personnel that are in closest proximity to the
locations of the alarm conditions." The Examiner includes no findings
regarding how Green's sending of an alert to all users would lead one skilled
in the art to place proximity restrictions on which users are sent an alert. See
Final Act. 9--10 (stating Green's teachings are "interpreted as being
equivalent" without providing an explanation of such equivalence).
Accordingly, we are constrained by the record to reverse the
obviousness rejections of dependent claims 27 and 28.
C. Claim 3
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in the rejection of claim 3, which
"through its dependency[ 4J, requires a video recorder that includes a video
analytics system that analyzes the image data from the security cameras for
security events and generates the alarm conditions in response to detecting
the security events in the image data," and that the security control system
"determines the locations of the alarm conditions by accessing position
information for the security cameras that generated the image data that gave
rise to the alarm conditions." App. Br. 10-11. Appellants contend the
following:
Where the present claimed invention generates alarm conditions
by analyzing image data from security cameras and the security
control system determines the locations of the alarm conditions
4 Claim 3 depends from claim 2, which depends from independent claim 1.
6
Appeal 2018-007141
Application 13/965,833
by accessing position information for the security cameras that
generated the image data that gave rise to the alarm conditions,
Zampieron appears to only use simple video analysis.
App. Br. 11.
We are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments. First, with respect to
the subject matter of dependent claim 3, Appellants fail to address the
Examiner's finding that Zampieron's "exemplary command node 20
includes situational awareness applications 21 that display sensor alarms in a
geographical context." Final Act. 12 (citing Zampieron ,r 23) (emphasis
omitted). Second, Appellants' argument does not address the Examiner's
findings regarding parent claim 2 that Zampieron teaches that "[ a ]n analysis
module 93 analyzes video and/or audio data from the data recording device
18." Final Act. 11 (citing Zampieron Fig. 3 element 93, ,r 41) (emphasis
omitted). The cited portions of Zampieron teach that analysis module 93
includes a data storage area 92 having a library that "may include an image
of a tank," thereby allowing analysis module 93 to "detect[] an object
resembling ... [a] tank." Zampieron ,r 41. Accordingly, we do not agree
with Appellants' argument that Zampieron only uses simple video analysis. 5
See App. Br. 11.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of dependent claim
3, and the rejections of dependent claims 14 and 15, and independent claim
26, not argued separately with particularity. See App. Br. 10-11.
5 Separately, in the event of further prosecution, the Examiner may wish to
consider whether the disclosure provides written description support the
claimed "video analytics system." See, e.g., Spec. ,r,r 18, 46, 69; see also
Examining Computer-Implemented Functional Claim Limitations for
Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112, 84 Fed. Reg. 57 (Jan. 7, 2019).
7
Appeal 2018-007141
Application 13/965,833
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
is affirmed.
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 27 and 28 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is reversed.
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). See
37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(f).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
8