Ex Parte Johnson

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 22, 2017

12057442 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 22, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/057,442 03/28/2008 Alexander Steven Johnson 10171-130US1 1364
75158 7590
Verint Systems, Inc.
Meunier Carlin & Curfman, LLC
999 Peachtree Street NE
Suite 1300
Atlanta, GA 30309
EXAMINER
DEBNATH, SUMAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2495
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/24/2017 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):
laaronson@mcciplaw.com
KCarroll@mcciplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALEXANDER STEVEN JOHNSON
Appeal 2016-007253
Application 12/057,442
Technology Center 2400
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, ERIC B. CHEN, and
KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-007253
Application 12/057,442
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of
claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 under appeal read as follows (emphasis and
bracketing added):
1. A method for controlling digital rights management of
video, comprising:
[(A)] receiving, from a video source, a video showing a
transaction station comprising a plurality of frames;
[(B)] receiving a signal from the transaction station
indicating that an item of interest is in use;
[(C)] in response to the signal, processing at least one
frame from the video to detect the item of interest in the video;
and
[(D)] configuring digital rights management for the video
to provide the video unobscured to certain users for viewing
and to provide the video where the item of interest is obscured
to other users.
Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner rejected claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Gabay et al. (US 7,714,878 B2; May 11, 2010).1
1 Separate patentability is argued for claims 1,2, and 15. Claims 3—14 are
grouped with claim 1. Claims 16—20 are grouped with claim 15. Except for
our ultimate decision, the rejection of claims 3—14 and 16—20 is not
discussed further herein.
2
Appeal 2016-007253
Application 12/057,442
Appellant’s Contentions2
1. Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because:
Gabay does not disclose any process wherein a video is
received showing a transaction station and then a signal is
received from the transactions station. The Final Office Action
. . . alleges that Gabay discloses [such] limitations in Gabay’s
Specification col. 6, lines 25—35 and col. 14, lines 45—60. (Office
Action pg. 3).
App. Br. 9, emphasis omitted.
[In this section of Gabay] above, no video is described as
showing a transaction station, nor is a signal described as
received from the transaction station. The quoted language
above simply describes a process where multimedia is received,
the multimedia being of several types of data that are exchanged
between devices, and that the data can include video and other
information regarding events occurring in the video (i.e.
metadata).
App. Br. 10, emphasis omitted.
2. Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 2
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because:
Gabay’s Specification co[l]. 14, lines 45—60[,] ...is
entirely silent regarding allowing or prohibiting copying of
frames of a video, much less prohibiting copying frames of the
video that show the item of interest while allowing copying
frames of the video that do not show the item of interest.
App. Br. 14, emphasis omitted.
2 These contentions are determinative as to the rejections on appeal.
Therefore, Appellant’s remaining contentions are not discussed herein.
3
Appeal 2016-007253
Application 12/057,442
3. Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 15
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because:
In the rejection of claim 15, the Office Action asserts that
it rejects the claim “using the similar rationale as for the rejection
of claim 8,” and that Claim 8 is rejected “using the similar
rational as for the rejection of claim 1(Office Action pg. 4).
However, claim 15 does not recite the same limitations of claims
1 and 8. Neither claim 1 nor claim 8, recite “configure[ing]
digital rights management for the video by prohibiting copying
frames of the video that show the payment card while allowing
copying frames of the video that do not show the payment card.”
App. Br. 16—17.
Issues on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1, 2, and 15 as being
anticipated?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred.
As to Appellant’s above contention 2, we disagree the Examiner has
erred. Although we agree with Appellant’s initial argument that the portion
of Gabay (col. 14, lines 45—60) cited in the Final Action (page 4) as
disclosing “prohibiting copying” is wanting, the Examiner responds to
Appellant’s argument by citing to an additional portion of Gabay (col. 13,
and lines 25—50) as teaching the argued limitation. We agree with the
Examiner. Also, we do not find where Appellant’s Reply Brief disputes this
new finding.
4
Appeal 2016-007253
Application 12/057,442
As to Appellant’s above contention 3 similarly directed to
“prohibiting copying,” we disagree with Appellant’s contention 3 for the
same reasons as set forth for contention 2.
As to Appellant’s above contention 1 (with which we agree), the
Examiner responds by newly construing the “transaction station” limitation
of claim 1 as exemplified by “a pharmacy counter.”
It should be noted that Appellant’s specification doesn’t
define the term “transaction station” in any limiting way.
Appellant’s specification provides one example in the
specification, which describes transaction station could be “a
pharmacy counter in a supermarket” and “only certain authorized
users may view the portions of the video showing the pharmacy
counter[”] (Specification, [0021]). A pharmacy counter can’t be
interpreted as a device per se. Thus, in a broader interpretation,
a transaction station could be any location or area or a door that
has been recorded. Gabay discloses recording equipment
controlled from a distance using camera (col. 6, lines 34-50);
wherein access restricting devices or barriers such as doors
which can be opened or controlled from a remote location and a
camera can be used for recording. The “equipment” and/or
“doors” reads on transaction station. A “signal is received from
the transaction station” could simply mean detecting a visual
que/signal of an event in a recording or monitoring area.
Ans. 2—3. Appellant responds at page 3 of the Reply Brief:
Gabay does not disclose any method or system where a video is
received showing a ([pharmacy counter/equipment/doors), then
a signal is received from a ([pharmacy counter/equipment/ doors)
indicating that an item of interest is in use, and then specifically
in response to the signal, processing frame(s) of the video to
detect the item of interest in the video.
Notwithstanding the above, Appellant further respectfully
notes that the terms “transaction station” . . . [has] not been given
[its] broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
specification by the Examiner.
Further, Appellant responds at page 4 of the Reply Brief:
5
Appeal 2016-007253
Application 12/057,442
As highlighted in Specification paragraph [0029], a pharmacy
counter is an example of a “location shown in the video” that can
be detected (see claim 10) and later obscured. The Specification
does not refer to a location itself as being a transaction station.
and,
The term transaction station finds support throughout
Appellant’s specification, including paragraph [0024] which
describes “a cashier station.”
We agree with Appellant. Further, we note that the Specification at
paragraph 23 states that a transaction occurs “at the cashier’s register.” We
construe the “transaction station” limitation of claim 1 as —equipment for
performing a transaction—. Although we agree with Examiner that perhaps
“equipment” and/or “doors” reads on a station, we find nothing in
Examiner’s reasoning that explain how the “equipment” and/or “doors”
performs a transaction. We conclude, consistent with Appellant’s argument
that the Examiner’s findings as to the “transaction station” were in error.
Therefore, we conclude that there is insufficient support for a finding that
claim 1 was anticipated at the time of Appellant’s invention.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) Appellant has established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1—20 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
(2) Claims 1—20 have not been shown to be unpatentable.
6
Appeal 2016-007253
Application 12/057,442
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—20 is reversed.
REVERSED
7