Ex Parte Hammadou

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 25, 2013

11219951 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte TARIK HAMMADOU
____________________

Appeal 2012-007726
Application 11/219,951
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before THU A. DANG, JAMES R. HUGHES,
and GREGORY J. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-007726
Application 11/219,951

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-47. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

A. INVENTION
Appellant’s invention is directed to a configurable surveillance system
and method having a programmable camera/sensor agent including a
network interface, a processor, an image processor, and an image sensor;
wherein, the programmable sensor agent receives a device programming file
corresponding to a new feature to program a configurable device located
within the image processor (Abstract; Spec. ¶ [0025]).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method for configuring a security and/or
surveillance system, the method comprising:

receiving a device programming file in a programmable
sensor agent of the security and/or surveillance system, said
device programming file corresponding to at least one new
feature selected for addition to or for upgrade of said
programmable sensor agent;

programming at least one configurable device in said
programmable sensor agent to perform at least said selected at
least one new feature, said programming based on said received
device programming file, and wherein said new feature enables
functionality in said programmable sensor agent not previously
performed in said programmable sensor agent prior to said
programming; and
Appeal 2012-007726
Application 11/219,951

3
verifying said programming of said at least one
configurable device in said programmable sensor agent.

C. REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Sun US 6,151,657 Nov. 21, 2000
Graziano US 2002/0111698 Al Aug. 15, 2002
Stilp US 2004/0215750 Al Oct. 28, 2004
Ghercioiu US 2005/0289274 Al Dec. 29, 2005
(filed Jun. 23, 2004)
Creamer US 7,350,224 B2 Mar. 25, 2008
(filed Jun. 14, 2004)

Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9-11, 13, 14, 44, and 45 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Graziano in view of Sun and
Stilp.
Claims 4, 12, 17, 18, 20-23, 26-35, and 46 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Graziano in view of Sun,
Creamer, and Stilp.
Claims 7, 8, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Graziano in view of Sun, Stilp, and Ghercioiu.
Claims 19, 24, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Graziano in view of Sun, Creamer, Stilp, and
Ghercioiu.
Claims 36-41, 43, and 47 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Graziano in view of Creamer and Stilp.
Claim 42 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Graziano in view of Creamer, Stilp, and Ghercioiu.

Appeal 2012-007726
Application 11/219,951

4
II. ISSUES
The dispositive issues before us are whether the Examiner has erred in
determining that:
1. the combination of Graziano, Sun, and Stilp teaches or would
have suggested “receiving a device programming file in a programmable
sensor agent of the security and/or surveillance system, said device
programming file corresponding to at least one new feature selected for
addition to or for upgrade of said programmable sensor agent” and “wherein
said new feature enables functionality in said programmable sensor agent
not previously performed in said programmable sensor agent prior to said
programming” (claim 1, emphasis added); and
2. the combination of Graziano, Sun, Creamer, and Stilp teaches
or would have suggested “receiving at least one programming key
corresponding to said device programming file” (claim 28, emphasis added)
and “decrypting said device programming file using said at least one
programming key” (claim 29, emphasis added).

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Graziano
1. Graziano discloses a web-based system having a host and
remote devices; wherein, the system enables a user to monitor and control
home devices connected to the system through the host using an interface
display (Abstract; Fig. 5A; ¶ [0051]).
Appeal 2012-007726
Application 11/219,951

5
2. When the user enters home configuration information to be sent
to the web-based host 70, the control panel programs 76 running on
web-based host 70 receive the home configuration information and stores
the information in a database 75 in any suitable format, such as a script file
(Fig. 8, step 814; ¶ [0070]). The control panel programs 76 send the home
configuration information to a home attendant 31 in the user’s home device
30n (Fig. 8, steps 822-824; ¶¶ [0071]-[0072]).
3. The home configuration file includes behavior information such
as instructions for the dates and times to turn a home device ON and OFF, to
monitor the status of the home devices, or to change the behavior or state of
the home devices according to a user’s preferences (e.g., a daytime state, an
evening state, and a nighttime state for each device) (¶ [0068]). In
particular, if the home configuration information includes a front porch light
schedule which indicates that the front porch light is scheduled to be ON
from 6:30 PM to 10:00 PM, home attendant 31 will send an appropriate
command to the front porch light turning it ON at 6:30 PM and continue to
monitor the front porch light schedule until 10:00 PM, when it sends an
appropriate command to the front porch light to turn it OFF (¶ [0073]).
Sun
4. Sun discloses an integrated circuit (IC) 10 having an embedded
processor (microcontroller 11) and memory (a set of non-volatile memory
arrays 16 and 17) for storing sequences of instructions that provide
In-Circuit Programming (ICP) (Fig. 1; col. 1, ll. 6-10). The IC includes a
normal path 20 that enables the erasing and programming arrays 16 and 17
with integrated ICP code and user code; wherein, the erase and program
Appeal 2012-007726
Application 11/219,951

6
operations are verified using normal verify path 21(Fig. 1; col. 6, l. 65- col.
7, l. 1).
Stilp
5. Stilp discloses a security system that enables a homeowner to
add a new base unit 200 to the security network 400 several years after
initial installation; wherein, the parameters for this new type of base unit 200
may be obtained from a site designated by the manufacturer (¶ [0166]). A
base unit 200 can be programmed to represent a smoke detector 590
including smoke, fire, or carbon monoxide (CO) detection capability 212 (¶
[0177]).
Creamer
8. Creamer discloses an integrated Internet camera that includes
embedded components that are controlled by a microcontroller through a
network interface; wherein, the camera includes a compression engine 224, a
color adjust 256, a character generation 254, an image pickup circuit 250,
and an image memory 220 (col. 8, ll. 14-63). A Non-Volatile Random
Access Memory (NVRAM) stores system firmware, parameters, and
applications for the camera 242 which is accessed by the microcontroller
200 (col. 9, ll. 1-4). In particular, the NVRAM 242 stores at least a user
interface/operating system application for controlling the microcontroller
200 and an exposure control application with automatic 10 gain control
(AGC) for controlling an exposure taken by an image pickup circuit 250
(col. 9, ll. 7-12). More particularly, the user interface includes a menu for
image files which include parameters that control image adjustments
(IMAGE ADJUST) which configure/program the image pickup circuit 250
(Fig. 5).
Appeal 2012-007726
Application 11/219,951

7
IV. ANALYSIS
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9-11, 13, and 14
Appellant contends that “Graziano’s web-based system is exclusively
for monitoring and/or controlling the devices, without any programming of a
sensor” (App. Br. 12). In particular, Appellant argues that “Graziano simply
configures a device to perform a known, existing function, and Graziano
does not program any device to add/upgrade a sensor agent with a
completely new feature” (App. Br. 14). Appellant contends further that in
“Stilp, the controller function 250 code, which is part of the received
program code, is used only for purposes of updating user requirements
configuration” (App. Br. 16, emphasis removed). Finally, Appellant argues
that “Examiner fails to provide ‘articulated reasoning with some rationale
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness’” (App.Br. 17)
because “[t]he generic benefit of ‘to provide security system for use in
residential and commercial buildings that can be self-installed or installed by
professionals at much lower cost than present systems’ is not an articulated
reasoning with a rational underpinning” (App. Br. 18).
However, the Examiner finds that Graziano “teaches a home device
40n-1[which] is a relatively complex home device such as a smart
appliance” that includes a “microprocessor 42, software 43, and control
circuitry 45 [which] can process commands received by home attendant
31[and] thereby chang[e] the behavior of home device 40n-1 or provid[e]
home device status information to home attendant 31” (Ans. 30-31). The
Examiner notes that he “analyzes the term ‘new feature’ in the broadest
term” since “[t]he claim does not teach a ‘new feature with new
parameters’” (Ans. 33). The Examiner also notes that “[c]onfigure is
Appeal 2012-007726
Application 11/219,951

8
defined as to insert batch files into (a program) to enable it to run with a
particular computer and program is defined as to insert or encode specific
operating instructions into (a machine or apparatus)” (Ans. 32). In addition,
the Examiner finds that Stilp “teaches wherein said new feature (new
parameters) enables functionality in said programmable sensor agent (base
unit 200) not previously performed in said programmable sensor agent (200)
prior to said programming (downloading)” (Ans. 34).
Appellant’s argument that “Graziano’s web-based system is
exclusively for monitoring and/or controlling the devices, without any
programming of a sensor” is not commensurate in scope with the specific
language of claim 1 (App. Br. 12). In particular, claim 1 does not recite such
“programming … a sensor” as Appellant argues.
We give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir.
1997). Claim 1 does not define “programmable sensor agent.” We note that
“programmable sensor” does not change the functionality of or provide an
additional function to the “agent,” i.e., does not limit how the agent receives
or processes the device programming file. Rather, this term is merely a label
describing the “agent.”
When descriptive material is not functionally related to the claimed
medium, the descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from the
prior art in terms of patentability. See In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed.
Cir. 2004) and In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385 (Fed. Circ. 1983). We
therefore give “programmable sensor agent” its broadest reasonable
interpretation as merely comprising a device. Thus, we give “receiving a
device programming file in a programmable sensor agent of the security
Appeal 2012-007726
Application 11/219,951

9
and/or surveillance system” its broadest reasonable interpretation as
receiving data in a device.
Further, claim 1 also does not define “configurable device” and “new
feature” other than the new feature enables functionality not previously
performed. We find “configurable device” comprises merely a device.
Thus, we give “programming at least one configurable device in said
programmable sensor agent to perform at least said selected at least one new
feature” its broadest reasonable interpretation as programming any device
with a function not previously performed.
Graziano discloses a web-based system that enables a user to monitor
and control home devices connected to the system through the host using an
interface display; wherein, the user enters home configuration information
into the interface display which is sent to the host in the form of a script file
and stored in a database (FF 1 and 2). The script file includes behavior
information such as instructions for the dates and times to turn a home
device ON and OFF, to monitor the status of the home devices, or to change
the behavior or state of the home devices according to a user’s preferences
(FF 3).
We find that the script file is an instruction set relating to a function
not previously performed by the agent (home device). We find further that
the changing of behavior or state of the home devices according to a user’s
preferences comprises programming any device with a function not
previously performed.
In addition, Sun discloses an IC having an embedded processor and
memory for storing sequences of instructions that provide ICP using ICP
code (FF 4). We find that the ICP code is an instruction set relating to a
Appeal 2012-007726
Application 11/219,951

10
function. We find further that the ICP comprises programming any device
with a function not previously performed.
Further, Stilp discloses a security system that enables a homeowner to
add a new base unit programmed to have fire and smoke detection
capabilities to a security network after the initial installation; wherein, the
system can retrieve the parameters for this new type of base unit from a site
designated by the manufacturer (FF 5). We find that the parameters
represent data relating to a function. We find further that the system
comprises programming any device with a function not previously
performed since the new base unit will have to be programmed with the
parameters after the initial installation.
In view of our claim construction above, we find that the combination
of Graziano, Sun, and Stilp at least suggests all the claim limitations of claim
1.
We also agree with the Examiner’s explicit motivation that combining
the references would be obvious since “provid[ing] a security system for use
in residential and commercial buildings that can be self-installed or installed
by professionals at much lower cost than present systems” is an articulated
reason supported by the reference (Ans. 41). The Supreme Court has stated
that “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is
likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Thus, we find no error in the Examiner’s finding that the combination
of Graziano’s system (including the programmable home devices) with the
ICP code, as disclosed in Sun, and the upgradable security system of Stilp
Appeal 2012-007726
Application 11/219,951

11
produces a security system including programmable devices which would be
obvious (Ans. 10; FF 1-5).
Accordingly, we find that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Graziano in view of
Sun and Stilp. Further, independent claim 9 having similar claim language
and claims 2, 3, 6, 9-11, and 14 (depending from claims 1 and 9), which
have not been argued separately, fall with claim 1.
Claims 5 and 13
Appellant contends that “even though Sun discloses, at the above
citations, that module 401 includes a flash ROM, Sun still does not disclose
that any of the ICP code (the alleged device programming file) is in fact
stored in the ROM” (App. Br. 20).
However, the Examiner finds that “Sun teaches the in-circuit
programming set is stored in block M of bank 1 of flash ROM array 17” and
that it “can be stored at any particular block in the device in any given
implementation” (Ans. 36).
Similar to claim 1 supra, claim 5 does not place any limitation on
what “programmable sensor agent” means, includes, or represents. Thus, we
give “storing at least a portion of said received device programming file in
said programmable sensor agent” its broadest reasonable interpretation as
storing data in a device.
As noted supra, Graziano discloses a system that stores the script file
in a database within the host (FF 2). We find that system includes storing
the script file in a device.
Appeal 2012-007726
Application 11/219,951

12
In addition as noted supra, Sun discloses an IC that stores the ICP
code and user code in the erasing and programming arrays (FF 4). We find
that IC includes storing the ICP code in a device.
Accordingly, we find that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Graziano in view of
Sun and Stilp. Further, dependent claim 13 having similar claim language
(depending from claim 9), which has not been argued separately, falls with
claim 5.
Claims 44 and 45
Appellant contends that Stilp “does not disclose that the base unit 200
(which includes the camera 213) in fact receives any device programming
files for purposes of adding new (previously non-existent) functionality,”
(App. Br. 22) since “the relevant functionality (namely, detecting smoke,
fire or CO gas) is present from the very moment the base unit 200 is built
and implemented” (App. Br. 23).
However, the Examiner finds that Stilp teaches the “functionality ([of
a] new type of base unit) comprises detection of existence of a physical
event (smoke fire CO or camera)” (Ans. 36).
As noted supra, Stilp discloses a security system that enables a
homeowner to add a new base unit having fire and smoke detection
capabilities to a security network after the initial installation; wherein, the
base unit is programmed with commensurate fire and smoke detection
parameters (FF 5). We find that fire and smoke detection comprises
detection of the existence of a physical event.
Accordingly, we find that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Graziano in view
Appeal 2012-007726
Application 11/219,951

13
of Sun and Stilp. Further, claim 45 (depending from claim 9), which has not
been argued separately, falls with claim 44.
Claims 17-20, 22, 24-35 and 46
Appellant argues that independent claim 17 is patentable over the
cited prior art for the same reasons asserted with respect to claim 1 (App. Br.
29-36). Appellant contends further that Creamer “does not disclose that the
NVRAM 242 information is used for configuring the image pickup circuit”
(App. Br. 37).
However, the Examiner finds that “Creamer teaches the camera 1
stores numerous variables and parameters (e.g., in the NVRAM 242) that
control the operation thereof, and which may be adjusted by the user via the
menu structure or via direct commands received by the microcontroller 200”
(Ans. 38).
As noted supra, however, we find that the combined teachings of
Graziano, Sun, and Stilp at least suggest all the features of claim 1.
Creamer discloses an integrated Internet camera that includes
embedded components that are controlled by a microcontroller through a
network interface; wherein, a NVRAM stores system firmware, parameters
and applications for controlling the imaging pickup circuit (FF 8). We find
that the camera includes an image processor which comprises a configurable
device (image pickup circuit).
We therefore affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 17 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 over Graziano in view of Sun, Creamer and Stilp. In addition,
Appellant contends that claims 18-20, 22, and 24-26 are allowable for the
same or similar reasons as claim 17. Therefore, we affirm the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 18, 20, 22, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Graziano
Appeal 2012-007726
Application 11/219,951

14
in view of Sun, Creamer and Stilp and of claims 19, 24, and 25 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 over Graziano in view of Sun, Creamer, Stilp, and Ghercioiu
for the same reasons expressed with respect to parent claim 1, supra.
Claims 4, 12, 21, 27, 30, and 33
As to claim 4, Appellant contends that “Graziano, Sun, Creamer and
Stilp do not disclose or suggest at least the limitation of ‘selecting said
device programming file via a display interface in said programmable sensor
agent’” (App. Br. 38) because Creamer “does not disclose that the display
218 is used to select a device programming file” (App. Br. 39). However,
the Examiner finds that “Creamer teaches comprising selecting said device
programming file via a display interface (LCD Display 218) in said
programmable sensor agent (integrated internet camera 1)” (Ans. 18).
As noted supra, Graziano discloses a web-based system that enables a
user to monitor and control home devices connected to the system through
the host using an interface display; wherein, the user enters home
configuration information into the interface display which is sent to the host
in the form of a script file and stored in a database (FF 1 and 2). We find
that the method of enabling the user to monitor and control home devices
through an interface display comprises selecting a programming file (script
file) using a display interface in the device.
In addition as noted supra, Creamer discloses an integrated Internet
camera that includes embedded components that are controlled by a
microcontroller through a network interface; wherein, a NVRAM stores the
user interface for controlling image adjustments (FF 8). We find that the
method of controlling embedded components through an interface display
Appeal 2012-007726
Application 11/219,951

15
comprises selecting a programming file (image file) using a display interface
in the device.
Accordingly, we find that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Graziano in view of
Sun, Creamer, and Stilp. Appellant makes a similar argument for claims 12,
21, 27, 30, and 33 having similar claim language. Therefore, claims 12, 21,
27, 30, and 33 (depending from claims 9 and 17), which have not been
argued separately, fall with claim 4.
Claim 23
Appellant argues that claim 23 is patentable over the cited prior art for
the similar reasons asserted with respect to claim 5 (App. Br. 41).
As noted supra, however, we find that the combined teachings of
Graziano, Sun, and Stilp at least suggest all the features of claim 5. We
therefore affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Graziano in view of Sun, Creamer, and Stilp for the same reasons
expressed with respect to claim 5, supra.
Claims 28, 29, 31, 32, 34, and 35
As to claim 29, Appellant contends that “Creamer’s NVRAM 242
does not store any device programming files or received program keys
associated with device programming files” (App. Br. 46, emphasis
removed). Appellant argues further that Creamer “does not decrypt any
device programming file using such received programming key” (id.,
emphasis removed).
After reviewing the record on appeal, we agree with Appellant.
Although the Examiner finds that “Creamer teaches comprising receiving at
least one programming key” and “Graziano teaches … decrypting
Appeal 2012-007726
Application 11/219,951

16
(translating) said device programming file (script file)” (Ans. 39), we do not
find any teaching of “receiving at least one programming key corresponding
to said device programming file” and “decrypting said device programming
file using said at least one programming key” in the sections of Creamer and
Graziano relied upon by the Examiner. That is, there is no support for an
(encryption) key or a decryption key in either reference.
Accordingly, we find that Appellant has shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 28, 29, 31, 32, 34, and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Graziano in view of Sun, Creamer, and Stilp.
Claims 7, 8, 15, 16, 36-43, and 47
Appellant argues that claim 36-41, 43, and 47 is patentable over the
cited prior art for the same reasons asserted with respect to claim 1 (App. Br.
49-56 and 61-62).
As noted supra, however, we find that the combined teachings of
Graziano, Sun, and Stilp at least suggest all the features of claim 1. We
therefore affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7, 8, 15, and 16 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 over Graziano in view of Sun, Stilp, and Ghercioiu; of claims
36-41, 43, and 47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Graziano in view of Creamer
and Stilp; and of claim 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Graziano in view of
Creamer, Stilp, and Ghercioiu for the same reasons expressed with respect to
claim 1, supra.

Appeal 2012-007726
Application 11/219,951

17
V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 28, 29, 31, 32, 34, and 35 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed, while the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-
27 and 30, 33, 36-47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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-IN-PART

peb