Ex Parte Jain et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2016

12643643 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/643,643 12/21/2009
92556 7590
HONEYWELL/HUSCH
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O.Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
09/30/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Abhishek Jain
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.
H0024889/4874/l l 0649 4845
EXAMINER
PE,GEEPY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2488
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/30/2016 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 ABHISHEK JAIN and RA VI SHARMA
Appeal2015-005322
Application 12/643,643
Technology Center 2400
Before THU A. DANG, MATTHEW J. McNEILL, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Non-Final Rejection of claims 1-9 and 21-25, which constitute all claims
pending in the application. Claims 10-20 have been canceled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Honeywell International, Inc. as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2015-005322
Application 12/643,643
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
A typical network video recorder system in the surveillance industry
consists of multiple video servers and multiple cameras. Spec. i-f 2.
Appellants' claimed invention relates to automatically associating the video
cameras with the servers in such a system in order to, for example, facilitate
load balancing. Id. at i-f 4--5. Claim 1, the only independent claim, is
illustrative of the invention and reads as follows:
1. An apparatus comprising:
a plurality of view cameras;
a plurality of video servers; and
an interface coupled to the cameras and the servers, the
interface maintaining a record of cameras that need service, and
a record of available servers, the interface including circuitry
that automatically associates each camera with only one
available server at any time, and the interface including circuitry
that optimally distributes camera loads among all available video
servers in the plurality of video servers.
App. Br. 14 (emphasis added).
The Examiner rejected claims 1-9 and 21-25 under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Palmer (US 2010/0026811 Al; pub.
Feb. 4, 2010) and Wolff (US 6,067,545; issued May 23, 2000). Non-Final
Act. 2-9.
Appellants appeal the foregoing rejection.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments presented in this appeal. Arguments which Appellants could
have made but did not make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See
2
Appeal2015-005322
Application 12/643,643
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). On this record, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in
the rejections from which this appeal is taken and in the Examiner's Answer,
and highlight the following for emphasis.
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding the prior art teaches
"the interface including circuitry that automatically associates each camera
with only one available server at any time," as recited in independent claim
1. App. Br. 3--4 (emphasis added). Appellants further argue the Examiner
erred in finding a rationale to combine the references. App. Br. 6.
The Examiner finds the disputed claim limitation in the combination
of Palmer and Wolff. Ans. 8-9. As the Examiner finds, Palmer teaches
maintaining "health" of a network of video cameras by use of a camera
service manager that manages the association of cameras to servers. Id.
(citing Palmer i-fi-f 102-106). As the Examiner further finds, Wolff teaches
"load rebalancing" in a network, and illustrates associating a client with a
single server. Id. (citing Wolff col. 2, 11. 30--44, 56-64; col. 4 11. 35--48; col.
24, 11. 31-50; Figs. 7 A-7D). Figure 7B, reproduced below, illustrates such a
teaching of associating a client with a single server.
F!G. 78
Figure 7B illustrates a "plurality of nodes, e.g. servers, one of which is
referenced as server 104A," Wolff col. 24, 11. 38-39, and a plurality of
3
Appeal2015-005322
Application 12/643,643
"aware clients 102A and normal clients lOOA," id. at col. 24, 11. 37-38.
Arrow 704 indicates the I/O "path" between "Aware [client] 3" and "Node
[server] 3." Wolff col. 25, 11. 6-7. Each of the other clients in Figure 7B
also is illustrated as having an I/O path to just one server. Id. Thus, we find,
as did the Examiner, Figure 7B teaches each client associated with only one
server.
Accordingly, we find, as did the Examiner, Ans. 9, combining Wolffs
teaching of network load balancing and associating one client with one
server, with Palmer's teaching of automatic load balancing in a network
video camera system, teaches Appellants' "interface including circuitry that
automatically associates each camera with only one available server at any
time."
Appellant further argues the Examiner erred in combining Wolff and
Palmer because they allegedly are not "directed to the problem solved by the
claimed invention." App. Br. 6. As the Examiner finds, however, Wolff and
Palmer both are directed to the same problem of load balancing within
networks of servers. Ans. 10. This common "purpose," "goal," or
"objective" (of the references with one another) is sufficient rationale for
combining the references. See Innovention Toys LLC v. MGA Entertainment
Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1322-23 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Moreover, Appellants have
not provided evidence demonstrating that incorporating Wolffs client-server
teachings into Palmer's video camera network would have been "uniquely
challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art." See Leapfrog
Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
(citing KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418-19 (2007)).
4
Appeal2015-005322
Application 12/643,643
Accordingly, we do not find the Examiner erred in combining the
references. 2
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of independent
claim 1 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Palmer and
Wolff. We also sustain the same rejection of dependent claims 2-9 and 21-
25, which were not argued separately.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-9 and 21-25.
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
2 To the extent Appellants intended to allege error with respect to other
claim limitations, see, e.g., App. Br. 4---6, such error has not been sufficiently
identified in the Briefs. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir.
2011) ("[W]e hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to
require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation
of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements
were not found in the prior art.");
5