Ex Parte GunasekaranBabu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 4, 2016

12642944 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 4, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/642,944 12/21/2009
92556 7590
HONEYWELL/HUSCH
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O.Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
11/08/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ganesh GunasekaranBabu
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.
4874-110664 3562
EXAMINER
PE,GEEPY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2488
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/08/2016 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 GANESH GUNASEKARANBABU,
GOPALAKRISHNAN VENKATESAN,
BALAJI BADHEY SIV AKUMAR, and ABDUL RAHEEM
Appeal2015-000119
Application 12/642,944
Technology Center 2400
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
JOHN F. HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judges.
HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek review, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), of the Examiner's
Final Office Action rejection of claims 1-11and13-21. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2015-000119
Application 12/642,944
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
The invention is directed to systems and methods for tracking the path
of a user configurable object. Spec. i-f 1.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method comprising:
displaying, on a user interface, a video data stream of a
monitored region;
receiving user input to identify boundaries of an object
displayed on the user interface;
configuring the object in the video data stream;
receiving user input to identify at least one valid path
along which the object is permitted to travel;
configuring the valid path;
tracking a path of the object;
determining when the path of the object is outside of the
valid path; and
providing an alert to a user when the path of the object is
outside of the valid path.
Ozdemir
Turner
Kelly
REFERENCES
US 2008/0198231 Al
US 7,671,718 B2
US 7,859,564 B2
REJECTIONS
Aug. 21, 2008
Mar. 2, 2010
Dec. 28, 2010
Claims 1-11 and 13-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ozdemir, Turner, and Kelly. Final Act. 3.
2
Appeal2015-000119
Application 12/642,944
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants'
contentions, and adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief.
We highlight the following for emphasis.
Appellants first argue, after reciting claim 1 in its entirety, that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because "[t]hese features are not
disclosed by Ozdemir et al., Turner et al. and Kelly, III et al." App. Br. 6.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument, which lacks sufficient
substance to persuade us of Examiner error. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv)
(2013) ("A statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not
be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim.")
Appellants next argue that claim 1 is patentable because it "offers a
different functionality than that of Ozdemir et al., Turner et al., and Kelly, III
et al." Id. at 7. In particular, Appellants argue that the claimed invention is
able to define objects and paths individually, and "[t]his is not possible under
Ozdemir et al. where the flow model incorporates all objects, or Turner et al.
where the restricted areas apply to all objects or Kelly, III et al. where pixels
are modeled." Id. We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument.
The Examiner finds Turner teaches or suggests receiving user input
"to identify an object and set a defined, accessible area, which can be a path
in which the object is permitted to travel." Final Act. 4. Appellants do not
challenge this finding, other than to contend that Turner applies the same
restricted area to all objects. App. Br. 6. Although we agree with Appellants
that Turner applies the same restricted area to all objects, we do not find this
3
Appeal2015-000119
Application 12/642,944
patentably distinguishes claim 1 over Turner. Although claim 1 requires
"identify[ing] at least one valid path along which [an identified] object is
permitted to travel," it does not require the identified path to be unique to the
identified object, nor does it prohibit the identified path from being a valid
path for multiple identified objects. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by
Appellants' argument.
Appellants next argue the Examiner failed to establish a prima facie
case that claim 1 is obvious because "there is no teaching or suggestion
whatsoever in Ozdemir et al., Turner et al. or Kelly, III et al. of the
customized designations of objects or paths," and because "none of the cited
references are directed to the problem solved by the claimed invention."
App. Br. 9.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. As the Supreme
Court found in KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007), "the
obvious analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the
words teaching, suggestion, and motivation [to combine]," and any analysis
based on such a narrow conception "is incompatible with [the Court's]
precedents." Further, "[i]n determining whether the subject matter of a
patent claim is obvious, neither the particular motivation nor the avowed
purpose of the patentee controls." Id. Rather, "any need or problem known
in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent
can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed."
Id. at 420. Accordingly, to establish a prima facie case that claim 1 is
obvious over the cited art, the Examiner need only proffer "some articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness." Id. at 418.
4
Appeal2015-000119
Application 12/642,944
In rejecting claim 1 as obvious over the combination of Ozdemir,
Turner, and Kelly, the Examiner concludes:
[I]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time the invention was made to include the limitations of
receiving user input to identify an object and receiving user input
to identify at least one valid path along which the object is
permitted to travel in the Ozdemir invention, as shown in Turner,
for the benefit of identifying unauthorized access to restricted
areas.
Final Act. 4. The Examiner further concludes:
[I]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time the invention was made to include the limitation of
receiving user input to identify boundaries of an object displayed
on the user interface and for there to be a user interface in the
Ozdemir-Turner combination, as shown in Kelly, for the benefit
of real-time viewing and manual identification of figures.
App. Br. 4--5. The challenges that Appellants raise to these conclusions-
that the prior art lacks a specific teaching, suggestion, or motivation to
combine, or that the prior art is not directed to the problem solved by the
claimed invention-are inconsistent with the Supreme Court's guidance in
KSR and are, therefore, insufficient to persuade us of Examiner error.
Therefore, for the reasons discussed supra, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 1. Appellants do not separately argue for the patentability
of claims 2-11, and 15-21. App. Br. 9. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of these claims for the same reasons.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-11 and 13-21under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ozdemir, Turner, and Kelly is affirmed.
5
Appeal2015-000119
Application 12/642,944
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