Ex Parte HAUPTMANN et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 12, 2016

13107427 (P.T.A.B. May. 12, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/107,427 05/13/2011
22917 7590 05/16/2016
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC.
IP Law Docketing
1301 EAST ALGONQUIN ROAD
IL02 5th Floor - SHS
SCHAUMBURG, IL 60196
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
ALEXANDER HAUPTMANN
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.
CM14256 7390
EXAMINER
BITAR, NANCY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2669
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/16/2016 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):
USAdocketing@motorolasolutions.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALEXANDER HAUPTMANN and BOAZ J. SUPER
Appeal2014-008997
Application 13/107,427
Technology Center 2600
Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, KAMRAN JIV ANI, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
A. "1"1 ,1 "1 "1 ,..,,,-TT#'l~ll"l,..,,Al/'-r'" ,"1 T"""i •., Appeuants' appeal unaer j) u.~.L. s U4~aJ rrom me bxammer s
rejection of claims 1-5 and 7-13.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Motorola Solutions,
Inc. Br. 3.
2 Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but
the Examiner has indicated that it would be allowable if written in
independent form. Final Act. 8.
Appeal2014-008997
Application 13/107,427
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' present application relates to selecting an algorithm to
track an object from the field of view of a first camera to the field of view of
a second camera. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal and reads as follows:
1. A method for selecting a feature or appearance matching
method based on available video representation features, the
method comprising:
determining by a video analytic processor, a plurality of
available video representation features for a first video output
from a first camera and for a second video output from a second
camera;
analyzing, by the video analytic processor the plurality of
video representation features as compared to at least one
threshold to select one of a plurality of feature or appearance
matching methods;
using the feature or appearance matching method selected
to track/detect movement of an object or person from a field of
view of the first camera to a field of view of the second camera.
The Examiner's Rejection
Claims 1-5 and 7-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Khan et al., IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and
Machine Intelligence, Vol. 25, No. 10 (Oct. 2003), Bronstein (US
2010/0104184 Al; Apr. 29, 2010), and Yoshimatsu (US 6,326,994 Bl; Dec.
4, 2001). See Ans. 4-8.
2
Appeal2014-008997
Application 13/107,427
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants'
conclusions. Except as noted below, we adopt as our own: (1) the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's
Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief. We concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following additional
points.
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Khan, Bronstein, and Y oshimatsu teaches or suggests "analyzing, by the
video analytic processor the plurality of video representation features as
compared to at least one threshold to select one of a plurality of feature or
appearance matching methods." See Br. 4-8. In particular, Appellants
argue the Examiner relies on Bronstein to teach or suggest this limitation,
but Bronstein "only discloses a single technique to identify objects, and thus
fails to teach or otherwise suggest selecting among a plurality of feature or
appearance matching techniques." Br. 6. Appellants argue Bronstein
teaches a single approach called "video DNA or video genomics," and when
Bronstein refers uses this phrase, the "or" refers to two different names for
the same approach, not two different approaches. Br. 6-7. Appellants also
argue Bronstein's spatial and temporal matching are two techniques that are
both used in video DNA or video genomics, not two separate techniques
from which the system selects. Br. 7.
We disagree with Appellants' characterization of Bronstein and
Appellants' conclusions. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Bronstein
3
Appeal2014-008997
Application 13/107,427
teaches three different algorithms: one temporal, one distance, and one
combination of temporal and distance. Ans. 9 (citing Bronstein Fig. 9).
Bronstein teaches each of these algorithms uses a threshold to remove
tracks-which are representations of a trajectory of a feature across frames
of video (Bronstein ,-i 125)-that do not comply with the threshold. Ans. 10
(citing Bronstein ,-i 129). We also note that Bronstein teaches tracks are
initially selected "based on feature similarity (i.e., the features belonging to
the track have similar descriptors), motion (i.e., the locations of the feature
points do not change significantly along the track), or both." Bronstein
,-i 125. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Bronstein teaches selecting
one of a plurality of algorithms. Accordingly, Appellants have not
persuaded us the Examiner erred in finding Bronstein teaches or suggests the
"analyzing" limitation.
CONCLUSIONS
On the record before us and in view of the analysis above, Appellants
have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as
unpatentable over Khan, Bronstein, and Y oshimatsu. Therefore, we sustain
the rejection of claim 1. We also sustain the rejection of claims 2-5 and 7-
13, which are not argued separately. See Br. 4-8.
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-5 and 7-13.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l .136(a)(l )(iv).
4
Appeal2014-008997
Application 13/107,427
AFFIRMED
5