Ex Parte Kreiner et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 21, 201612632943 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/632,943 12/08/2009 Barrett Morris Kreiner 35690 7590 09/23/2016 MEYERTONS, HOOD, KIVLIN, KOWERT & GOETZEL, P,C P.O. BOX 398 AUSTIN, TX 78767-0398 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. 6657-59601 4800 EXAMINER WONG, ALLEN C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2488 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/23/2016 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): patent_docketing@intprop.com ptomhkkg@gmail.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BARRETT MORRIS KREINER and JOSEPH E. PAGE JR. Appeal2015-003104 Application 12/632,943 Technology Center 2400 Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, HUNG H. BUI, andl AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Non-Final Rejection of claims 2-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claim 1 has been cancelled. We AFFIRM. Appeal2015-003104 Application 12/632,943 STATEMENT OF THE INVENTION According to Appellants, the claims are directed to a video recorder for producing surveillance data (Abstract; Spec. i-f 6). Claim 2, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 2. A video recorder, comprising: a processor; a buffer in communication with the processor; and a memory device in communication with the processor; wherein the processor is configured to: store video data in the buff er; and in response to an occurrence of a first event and a nonoccurrence of a second event, transfer at least a portion of the video data from the buffer to the memory device. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Murphy Basir Langfahl Kreiner US 6,225,890 B 1 US 2003/0154009 Al US 6,741,165 Bl US 7,667,731 B2 2 May 1, 2001 Aug. 14, 2003 May 25, 2004 Feb.23,2010 Appeal2015-003104 Application 12/632,943 REJECTIONS 1 Claims 2, 3, and 5-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Langfahl and Basir (Non-Final Act. 7-17). Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Langfahl, Basir, and Murphy (Non-Final Act. 17-18). ISSUES We disagree with Appellants' conclusions and 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 Answer in response to the Appeal Brief. With respect to the claims argued by Appellants, we highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 2, 3, and 5-21 Appellants assert their claimed invention, as recited in claim 2, is not obvious over Langfahl and Basir (App. Br. 8-13). The issues presented by the arguments are: Issue 1 a: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Langfahl and Basir teaches or suggests "in response to an occurrence of a first event and a nonoccurrence of a second event, transfer at least a portion of the video data from the buffer to the memory device," as recited in independent claim 1 and similarly recited in independent claims 9 and 16? 1 The rejection of claims 2, 7, 9, 14, 16, and 21 on the ground of non- statutory obviousness-type double patenting, as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 12 of Kreiner, has been withdrawn by the Examiner (Ans. 9- 10). 3 Appeal2015-003104 Application 12/632,943 Issue 1 b: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Langfahl and Basir teaches or suggests "wherein the second event is an authorization event," as recited in dependent claim 11? ANALYSIS Appellants argue Langfahl does not teach "nonoccurrence of a second event," rather, Langfahl only teaches capturing video data in response to occurrence of a first event (App. Br. 10). More specifically, Appellants contend Langfahl teaches some action to be taken when an event occurs, but does not describe the action is taken in response to a nonoccurrence of a second event (id. at 10-11). According to Appellants, even in Langfahl's "failsafe mode," Langfahl teaches the camera captures images at various intervals and indeed, Langfahl always capture images without determination of an "occurrence of a first event and a nonoccurrence of a second event" (id. at 11 ). Appellants assert the security response and the emergency response are not the claimed two events because both involve capturing and sending the video data (id.). Appellants argue the Examiner is reading the limitation "and a nonoccurrence of a second event" out of the claim (Reply Br. 4). Appellants additionally argue although where the camera is pointed may change between security responses and emergency response, video data is stored regardless (id.). Specifically, Appellants assert, as shown in Langfahl's Figures 5 and 6, regardless of whether a security or emergency response is triggered, Langfahl's system receives and transmits images regardless of which response is triggered (id.). 4 Appeal2015-003104 Application 12/632,943 We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. Initially, we note the term "event" is not defined explicitly in Appellants' Specification. Claim 2 recites transferring at least a portion of the video data upon occurrence of a first event and a nonoccurrence of a second event - not that video data is only recorded or transferred upon occurrence of a first event and a nonoccurrence of a second event. Indeed, claim 2 does not preclude recording or transferring video even if both events occur. Thus, in light of the broad, but reasonable, interpretation of "event," we are not persuaded Langfahl fails to teach the disputed limitation. Rather, we find, as set forth by the Examiner, Langfahl discloses two events: a security event and an emergency event (Ans. 10; Langfahl 3:30-47, 5:60- 6:4). Langfahl further teaches a motion sensor, door sensors, a hood sensor, and a trunk sensor are used in triggering an alarm to indicate a security event, turning the imaging device toward the security event, and recording the event (Langfahl 3:30-52). Langfahl additionally teaches a frontal sensor, a rear sensor, and an airbag sensor are used to indicate an emergency event, turning the imaging device toward the emergency event, and recording the event (id. at 3:53--4:12). The security event sensors are connected to an alarm which is connected to a control unit, and the emergency sensors are connected to the control unit (id. at 3:30-33, 3:53- 61, Fig. 3). The control unit distinguishes the type of response by determining which sensor has been triggered (id. at 4:21-24). We further agree with the Examiner that Langfahl teaches "in response to an occurrence of a first event and a nonoccurrence of a second event transfer at least a portion of the video data" because Langfahl discloses when the alarm is triggered by one of the sensors, the triggered 5 Appeal2015-003104 Application 12/632,943 alarm is detected by the control unit which determines if a false trigger has occurred (Ans. 13; Langfahl 5:60-61). Thus, we determine Langfahl teaches, or at least suggests, if the control unit determines a false trigger has not occurred, then a second event has not occurred and the first event (security event) has occurred. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments and determine the combination of Langfahl and Basir teaches "in response to an occurrence of a first event and a nonoccurrence of a second event, transferring at least a portion of the video data," as recited in claim 2. We further note the claim language is broad enough to cover, for example, occurrence of a security event (first event) and nonoccurrence of the camera system or computer system failing (second event). Similarly, claim 9 recites "determining that the first event has occurred" and "determining that a second event has not occurred." For the reasons set forth with respect to claim 2, we also find the combination of Langfahl and Basir teaches the disputed limitation. Specifically, Langfahl teaches a first event occurring and determining whether a false trigger has occurred (Ans. 13; Langfahl 5:60-61). Thus, if a false trigger is determined to not have occurred, at least a portion of the video data is transferred. Lastly, claim 16 recites "determining that the first event has occurred and that a second event associated with the first event has not occurred." For the reasons set forth with respect to claims 2 and 9, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's findings or reasoning. With respect to claim 11, Appellants argue Langfahl does not disclose "wherein the second event is an authorization event" (App. Br. 15). According to Appellants, Langfahl' s emergency event is triggered by a 6 Appeal2015-003104 Application 12/632,943 bumper or airbag sensor; however, Appellants argue the "emergency event" is not an "authorization event" (id.). Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner's findings and reasoning (Ans. 18; Final Act. 12). Initially, as a matter of claim construction, we determine the term "authorization event" is not defined explicitly in Appellants' Specification. The Examiner finds Langfahl' s security breach teaches a first event and an emergency event (an authorized event) teaches a second event (Ans. 18). Taking a broad, but reasonable interpretation of the term "authorization event," we agree with the Examiner that an emergency event is an authorization event. Therefore, it follows, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Langfahl and Basir teaches the disputed limitation. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Langfahl and Basir teaches or suggests the limitations as recited in independent claims 2, 9, and 16, dependent claim 11, and dependent claims 3, 5-8, 10, 12-15, and 17-21, not separately argued. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 2, 3, and 5-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Langfahl and Basir. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claim 4 Appellants assert the claimed invention as recited in claim 4, is not obvious over Langfahl, Basir, and Murphy (App. Br. 17-18). The issue presented by the arguments is: Issue 2: Has the Examiner erred in concluding the combination of Langfahl, Basir, and Murphy teaches or suggests "wherein the second event 7 Appeal2015-003104 Application 12/632,943 is a presence of a token indicating that the attempted vehicle entry is authorized," as recited in claim 4? ANALYSIS With respect to claim 4, Appellants contend the combination of Langfahl, Basir, and Murphy fails to teach "wherein the second event is a presence of a token indicating that the attempted vehicle entry is authorized" (App. Br. 13-15). Appellants admit Murphy teaches "the use of 'a token, presented by a would-be vehicle driver, containing personal information' which can be used to identify the driver and determine whether or not he/she is authorized" (App. Br. 14 (citing Murphy 14:46-65)). However, according to Appellants, the Examiner has not shown the relevance of Murphy's token to a nonoccurrence of a second event, wherein the second event is a presence of a token, as recited in claim 4 (App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 6). Additionally, Appellants assert the Examiner has not shown why it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Murphy with those of Langfahl (App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 6). We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. The Examiner has articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning - "[by] permitting the determination of whether the person attempting to gain access to the vehicle is authorized or permitted to access and drive the vehicle so as to prevent unauthorized personnel from accessing the vehicle" (Ans. 16; Non-Final Act. 17-18). Appellants have not persuaded us this reasoning is in error. In the Reply Brief, Appellants, for the first time, present an argument that the Examiner used improper hindsight (Reply Br. 6); however, Appellants have not explained why, nor is it apparent that, these arguments 8 Appeal2015-003104 Application 12/632,943 were necessitated by a new point in the Examiner's Answer or any other circumstance constituting "good cause" for its belated presentation. Therefore, Appellants have not shown that we should consider the new argument. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Langfahl, Basir, and Murphy teaches or suggests the limitations as recited in claim 4. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Langfahl, Basir, and Murphy. DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 2, 3, and 5-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Langfahl and Basir is affirmed. The Examiner's rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Langfahl, Basir, and Murphy 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation