Ex Parte Gutta et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 20, 2012

09897524 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 20, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte SRINIVAS GUTTA and DAMIAN LYONS
____________________

Appeal 2010-003972
Application 09/897,524
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ERIC S. FRAHM, and JUSTIN BUSCH,
Administrative Patent Judges.

BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-003972
Application 09/897,524

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 3-6, 8-15, 17-23, and 25-29. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
According to Appellants, the “invention relates to computer-vision
techniques, and more particularly, to a method and apparatus for detecting
events using vision-based recognition techniques.” Spec., p.1, ll. 7-9. Claims
1 and 11, reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for detecting an assistance-invoking event at a
monitored location,
comprising:
establishing at least one rule, the at least one rule defining the
assistance-invoking event, the rule including at least one condition,
wherein the condition is a change in an orientation of a principle axis
of an object detected in an image;
processing the image of the monitored location to automatically
determine whether the condition has occurred;
providing a notification to provide a corresponding assistance if
the processing has determined that the at least one condition has
occurred; and
recording the at least one image if any of the at least one condition
has occurred.

11. A method for documenting one of a plurality of events that may
be involved in litigation, comprising:
obtaining at least one image of a monitored location;
analyzing the at least one image using video content analysis
techniques to automatically identify at least one predefined feature in
the at least one image associated with the one of the plurality of
events; and
recording the at least one image if the predefined feature is
identified.

Appeal 2010-003972
Application 09/897,524

3
Rejections
Claims 11 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Liang (US 6,678,413 B1; January 13, 2004) and Broady
(US 5,495,288; February 27, 1996).
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-10, 12-15, 17-23, and 26-29 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Osterweil (US 7,106,885 B2;
September 12, 2006), Liang, and Broady.

ISSUE

Appellants argue “that the cited references are [not] combinable
because Broady et al. does not make up for the conceded deficiencies of
Liang et al.” App. Br. 7. Appellants then accurately summarize the relevant
teachings of the Liang, Broady, and Osterweil references. App. Br. 7-8, 10.
Appellants’ argument is that the combination of Broady, which discloses a
surveillance system that records video when a sensor detects that a certain
condition has been met (e.g., broken glass or motion detection), with Liang
would result in a system that would record video “if the sensor detects a
condition for which the surveillance system requires activation, storing, and
analyzing the image.” App. Br. 8. The argument is that Broady does not
trigger recording upon a condition determined through analysis of a feature
in the captured image but rather triggers recording based on sensors
independent from what is in the captured image. Thus, the issue presented to
us by Appellants’ arguments is, did the Examiner err in finding that the
combination of Liang and Broady teach the limitation of claim 11 directed to
recording at least one image if a predefined feature is identified in the
image?
Appeal 2010-003972
Application 09/897,524

4
With respect to claim 1, we are presented with the same issue because
Appellants’ only argument regarding claim 1 is that the addition of
Osterweil does not cure this alleged deficiency of the Liang-Broady
combination to teach triggering recording upon identification of a feature in
the captured image.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions that the Examiner has erred. Further, we have reviewed the
Examiner’s response to each of the arguments.
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to
incorporate the teachings of Broady into “the monitoring and alert system
disclosed by Liang in order to reduce the memory required for storing
surveillance data.” Ans. 5. The Examiner finds that, while the triggered
recording in one combination may be based on the sensors as disclosed in
Broady and explained by Appellants, another obvious combination of
Broady with Liang would result in a recording triggered by a condition, such
as those conditions disclosed in Liang. Id.
We agree with the Examiner that one combination of Liang and
Broady that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
would be a video surveillance system that triggers storing video upon
recognition of a condition within the captured image, as taught by Liang.
While Appellants have provided a description of one possible combination
of Liang and Broady, that combination does not preclude other combinations
that would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, the
Examiner has articulated sufficient reasoning that provides a rational basis
Appeal 2010-003972
Application 09/897,524

5
for a Liang-Broady combination that renders Appellants’ claims obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art. Appellants have not provided sufficient
argument or evidence to contradict the Examiner’s combination.
For the above reasons, we agree with the Examiner that one of
ordinary skill in the art would find that the combination of Liang and Broady
teaches the limitations of claim 11 and that the combination of Liang,
Broady, and Osterweil teaches the limitations of claim 1, such that claims 11
and 1 would be obvious in view of their respective teachings.

CONCLUSION
Based on the analysis above, we conclude that the Examiner did not
err in rejecting claims 1, 3-6, 8-15, 17-23, and 25-29 for obviousness under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 11 and 25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being obvious over Liang and Broady is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3-6, 8-10, 12-15, 17-23, and 26-
29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Osterweil, Liang, and
Broady 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED
ELD