Ex Parte Hakki et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 9, 2015

12487074 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 9, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte A-HAMID HAKKI, SAID HAKKY, SAM HAKKI, and
HADI HAKKI
____________

Appeal 2012-009098
Application 12/487,074
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, KEVIN F. TURNER, and
CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judges.

BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1–22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2012-009098
Application 12/487,074

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ Claimed Invention
The claimed invention “relates to a display system designed to
demonstrate simple, reliable, clear, and universally understandable visual
messages, for vehicles’ occupants and pedestrians to aid in optimizing the
efficiency of traffic flow as well as to increase safety considerations of
people on the roadways.” Spec. 1.
Representative Claim
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A system for traffic related information display and
traffic surveillance, comprising:
a plurality of display units, each of said display units
positioned at a respective one of a plurality of predetermined
locations associated with traffic flow, each of the display units
enclosed in a single compartment housing, the compartment
housing including at least one sensor continuously monitoring
the traffic flow and at least one camera continuously recording
audio and visual rapid sequence images of the traffic flow at
said respective predetermined location, said each display unit
having a “STOP” state, “GO” state, and “WAIT” state; and
a processing unit coupled to said plurality of the display
units, said processing unit including a first unit operable
responsive to information acquired by said sensor for predicting
imminent accidents based on sensed deceleration rates of
vehicles approaching said respective predetermined location,
said processing unit triggering to selectively initiate combined
storage of the audio and visual rapid sequence images
responsive to said predictions of imminent accident based on
deceleration rate, whereby the audio and visual rapid sequence
images for a select time period immediately before, during, and
after occurrence of an actual accident event are selectively
captured.
Appeal 2012-009098
Application 12/487,074

3
Prior Art Relied Upon
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Berezovsky US 6,175,313 B1 Jan. 16, 2001
Shintani et al. US 2003/0212567 A1 Nov. 13, 2003
(Shintani)
Aydin US 2004/0189491 A1 Sept. 30, 2004
Heald et al. US 2005/0094407 A1 May 5, 2005
(Heald)
Wolterman US 2006/0181433 A1 Aug. 17, 2006
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1–9, 12–17, and 19–22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wolterman, Shintani, and Heald.
Ans. 5–13.
Claims 10, 11, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Wolterman, Shintani, Heald, Aydin, and
Berezovsky. Ans. 13–14.

ISSUE ON APPEAL
The dispositive issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in
finding that the combination of Wolterman, Shintani, and Heald teaches or
suggests:
triggering to selectively initiate combined storage of . . . audio
and visual rapid sequence images responsive to . . . predictions
of imminent accident based on deceleration rate, whereby the
audio and visual rapid sequence images for a select time period
Appeal 2012-009098
Application 12/487,074

4
immediately before, during, and after occurrence of an actual
accident event are selectively captured,
as recited in independent claim 1.

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Wolterman discloses a system that includes
nearly all of the limitations of independent claims 1 and 16, except that
Wolterman discloses conventional speed cameras, rather than specifically
disclosing a system to record “audio and visual rapid sequence[s],” and the
sensor system associated with Wolterman’s traffic signals is located separate
from the traffic lights, rather than being enclosed within the housing.
Ans. 5–7, 12. With respect to the first of those differences, the Examiner
finds it is well known in the art to incorporate a camera that records both
video and audio to get a more accurate reading of a traffic event such as an
accident, as disclosed by Shintani. Id. at 6–7. With respect to the sensor and
traffic lights being enclosed within a single housing, the Examiner finds
Heald discloses a traffic signal light chassis that can contain subassemblies
and devices such as a surveillance camera, an environmental sensor, a
storage device, and a recording device, among others. Id. at 7.
Appellants argue Wolterman is silent on the claimed “triggering to
selectively initiate combined storage of the audio and visual rapid sequence
images responsive to . . . predictions of imminent accident based on
deceleration rate.” App. Br. 29. According to Appellants, “no triggering to
selectively initiate the storage of the audio/visual rapid sequence images
based on the prediction of the imminent accident is contemplated in
Wolterman,” and “Wolterman does not consider using the predictions of
Appeal 2012-009098
Application 12/487,074

5
possible collision to initiate the storage of the audio/visual rapid sequence
images as is provided in the present system.” Id. at 29–30. Appellants
further contend “Wolterman uses only visual images, but, contrary to the
claimed system and method, is silent as of to the ‘audio . . . rapid sequence
images’.” Id. at 30.
Regarding Shintani, Appellants argue “in contrast to the subject
structure and method, [Shintani’s] Capture-Image-Command for storage
images and associated other data is issued upon the occurrence of an
emergency event, but not responsive to the ‘prediction of the imminent
accident’ as is provided in the present system.” Id. at 31. According to
Appellants, Shintani’s system “focuses on audio /visual images only upon
the occurrence of the emergency event, and does not consider storage of the
audio/visual rapid sequence images ‘for a select time period immediately
before . . . occurrence of an actual accident event’, as is provided in the
present system and method.” Id.
Appellants further argue “Heald does not remedy the deficiency of the
combination of Wolterman and Shintani.” Id. at 32. More particularly,
Appellants argue, “Heald . . . is not concerned with either predicting
imminent accidents based on sensed deceleration rates of vehicles, or
triggering the selective initiation of combined storage of the audio and visual
rapid sequence images responsive to the predictions of imminent accident
based on deceleration rate.” Id.
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive of Examiner error. First, we
discern no error in the Examiner’s finding that Wolterman discloses the
“prediction[] of imminent accident” limitation of claims 1 and 16. Ans. 6,
24. As explained by the Examiner, Wolterman discloses a system that uses
Appeal 2012-009098
Application 12/487,074

6
artificial intelligence to determines a stopping deceleration required for a
vehicle to stop at a red light and also uses speed cameras to take images of
speeding vehicles for the issuance of a warning that failure to stop will result
in the vehicle being imaged with the likelihood of a subsequent traffic ticket.
Ans. 5 (citing Wolterman ¶ 65), 22 (citing Wolterman ¶¶ 29, 30).
Wolterman further discloses that the system is also operable to predict a
possible collision using speed data related to the moving vehicle. Id. at 22
(citing Wolterman ¶ 84). The Examiner further explains, and we agree, that
the triggering of a camera to collect documentary evidence of a speeding
vehicle under circumstances of an imminent collision suggests that the
camera continues to take photographs of any resulting collision. Id.
Second, because the Examiner explicitly recognizes that Wolterman
uses only visual images and cites Shintani instead for the disclosure of
recording of “audio and visual rapid sequence images” (see Ans. 6–7, 23),
Appellants’ argument that Wolterman is “silent as . . . to the ‘audio . . .
rapid sequence images’” (App. Br. 30) is unpersuasive. See In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) (“[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by
attacking references individually where . . . the rejections are based on
combinations of references.”). Likewise, because the Examiner found that
Wolterman discloses the “prediction[]of imminent accident” limitation (see
Ans. 6, 24), Appellants’ argument that Shintani’s “Capture-Image-
Command for storage images and associated other data is . . . not responsive
to the ‘prediction of the imminent accident’” (App. Br. 31) is unpersuasive.
Third, Appellants’ remaining arguments with regard to Shintani are
unpersuasive in view of the cited portions of the reference. For example, as
Appellants acknowledge, Shintani discloses that “when a driver is involved
Appeal 2012-009098
Application 12/487,074

7
in an emergency situation, for example, a traffic accident, it is very
important to record how the emergency arose, the proceedings of the
emergency, and circumstance of where it occurred.” App. Br. 31 (emphasis
added) (citing Shintani ¶ 29). Moreover, as cited by the Examiner (see Ans.
6–7, 23), Shintani further discloses that “[a] desired record comprising
primitive data concerning the environment of the accident, such as live
images and sounds of the accident from inside and/or outside of the involved
cars, particularly during the time period that covers all of the accident, from
its initial cause to the consequences.” Shintani ¶ 30 (emphases added).
Because the quoted portions of Shintani disclose the importance and
desirability of recording “how the emergency arose” and recording “live
images and sounds . . . during the time period . . . from [the accident’s]
initial cause,” Appellants’ argument that Shintani’s system “focuses on
audio /visual images only upon the occurrence of the emergency event, and
does not consider storage of the audio/visual rapid sequence images ‘for a
select time period immediately before . . . occurrence of an actual accident
event” (App. Br. 31) is unpersuasive.
Lastly, because the Examiner found Wolterman, rather than Heald,
discloses the claim limitations regarding “predicting imminent accidents”
and “triggering to selectively initiate . . . storage . . . responsive to said
predictions” (see Ans. 6, 22–24), and because we discern no error in that
finding for the reasons stated above, Appellants’ argument that Heald “is not
concerned with” those limitations (see App. Br. 32) is unpersuasive.
Because Appellants’ arguments with respect to independent claim 1
are not persuasive of error, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1;
independent claim 16, for which Appellants do not present separate
Appeal 2012-009098
Application 12/487,074

8
substantive argument but instead rely on their arguments with respect to
claim 1 (id. at 38); and dependent claims 2–9, 12–15, 17, and 19–22, which
Appellants assert to be patentable based on their dependency from claims 1
and 16 (id. at 33–40), under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Wolterman, Shintani, and Heald.
With respect to claims 10, 11, and 18, Appellants additionally argue
that Aydin and Berezovsky are silent with respect to “triggering to
selectively initiate combined storage of the audio and visual rapid sequence
images responsive to . . . predictions of imminent accident based on
deceleration rate,” but otherwise rely on their arguments with respect to
claims 1 and 16, from which claims 10, 11, and 18 variously depend. Id. at
40–41. Because we agree with the Examiner’s findings that those elements
are disclosed or suggested by the combination of Wolterman, Shintani, and
Heald for the reasons stated above, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 10, 11, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Wolterman, Shintani, Heald, Aydin, and Berezovsky.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–9, 12–17, and 19–22
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wolterman, Shintani,
and Heald.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10, 11, and 18 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wolterman, Shintani, Heald,
Aydin, and Berezovsky.
Appeal 2012-009098
Application 12/487,074

9
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

tj