Ex Parte Laganiere et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 18, 2017

12900374 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 18, 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.
12/900,374 10/07/2010 Robert Laganiere 10366.0400 7659
39602 7590 12/20/2017
THE NOBLITT GROUP, PLLC
Daniel J. Noblitt
8800 NORTH GAINEY CENTER DRIVE
SUITE 279
SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85258
EXAMINER
ANDERSON II, JAMES M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/20/2017 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):
docketing @ ngtechlaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT LAGANIERE, WILLIAM MURPHY,
PASCAL BLAIS, and JASON PHILLIPS
Appeal 2017-004045
Application 12/900,374
Technology Center 2400
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1-10 and 21-29. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2017-004045
Application 12/900,374
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is directed to a broker mediated method and
system for performing video analytics. Spec. ^ 1. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
establishing a single IP stream for transmitting video data
from a source end to a central server via a Wide Area Network
(WAN), the video data including video data relating to an event
of interest captured using a video camera disposed at the source
end;
via the single IP stream, transmitting the video data from
the source end to the central server;
pre-processing the video data using video analytics;
establishing a plurality of other IP streams, including a
separate IP stream for transmitting the video data between the
central server and each one of a plurality of different video
analytics engines via the WAN, the plurality of different video
analytics engines selected from a larger plurality of video
analytics engines based on a result of the pre-processing;
via the plurality of other IP streams, transmitting the
video data from the central server to each one of the plurality of
different video analytics engines via the WAN; and
performing different video analytics processing of the
video data using each one of the plurality of different video
analytics engines.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-3, 7, 9, 10, 22, 23, and 27-29 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Addy (US
2
Appeal 2017-004045
Application 12/900,374
2009/0015671 Al; published Jan. 15, 2009), St-Jean (US 2008/0184245 Al;
published July 31, 2008), Park (US 2008/0252723 Al; published Oct. 16,
2008), and Salgar et al. (US 2009/0021583 Al; published Jan. 22, 2009)
(“Salgar”).
Claims 4-6 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Addy, St-Jean, Park, Salgar, and
Flores et al. (US 2010/0231714 Al; published Sep. 16, 2010) (“Flores”).
Claims 21 and 24-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Addy, St-Jean, Park, Salgar, and
Schneiderman et al. (US 7,881,505 B2; issued Feb. 1, 2011)
(“ S chneiderman”).
ANALYSIS
Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Addy, St-
Jean, Park, and Salgar teaches or suggests
establishing a plurality of other IP streams, including a separate
IP stream for transmitting the video data between the central
server and each one of a plurality of different video analytics
engines via the WAN, the plurality of different video analytics
engines selected from a larger plurality of video analytics
engines based on a result of the pre-processing,
as recited in independent claim 1 and commensurately recited in
independent claims 24 and 27?
Appellants argue “[njone of the cited references teach or suggest that
the video analytics to be performed are based on anything, other than the
fact that the video data exists.” App. Br. 11. Appellants further argue “[t]he
cited references suggest that the network communication is already
established and doesn’t change - that the elements are always in
3
Appeal 2017-004045
Application 12/900,374
communication.” App. Br. 11. According to Appellants, “[t]he claimed
invention states that a decision, based on some condition, be made before the
communication is established.” App. Br. 11.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. The Examiner relies
on St-Jean and Park to teach or suggest the disputed limitation. Final Act.
14-15; Ans. 16-18. St-Jean describes video analytics tasks, which may be
created in several different ways, including based on trigger information or
from a set of stored tasks based on business logic rules or trigger
information. St-Jean 40. Then, “[vjideo analytics tasks, or task requests,
are sent to a video analytics task manager 106, which manages, routes,
and/or distributes the video analytics tasks to the appropriate video analytics
resource, which can be one of a plurality of video analytics resources 108.”
St-Jean ^ 41, emphasis added; see also Fig. 1, 42^15. The embodiment in
Figure 2 of St-Jean describes “a lower level of analytics is performed by a
dedicated resource, and higher levels of analytics are performed at shared
resources.” St-Jean 46; see also St-Jean 47, 54, 55. Further, Park
teaches a plurality of video analysis modules that analyze received video in
parallel where, for example, video analysis module 1418 includes a fire
detector and video analysis module 1420 includes a people counter. Park
173, 174; Fig. 14A. We agree with the Examiner that such disclosure
teaches or suggests “the plurality of different video analytics engines
selected from a larger plurality of video analytics engines based on a result
of the pre-processing,” and Appellants have not persuasively argued
otherwise.
Appellants’ arguments that “the network communications is already
established and doesn’t change” are not commensurate with the scope of the
4
Appeal 2017-004045
Application 12/900,374
claim language, which recites “establishing a plurality of other IP streams.”
As described above, Park describes analyzing received video in parallel.
Appellants have not persuasively rebutted, or addressed, the Examiner’s
findings regarding this claim limitation. See Final Act. 14-15.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred.
Issue 2\ Did the Examiner err in combining Addy and St-Jean?
Appellants argue
the office action makes an unsupported leap to the conclusion
that simply because the Addy reference indicates that one video
analytics engine is disclosed, that it necessarily follows that one
of ordinary skill in art would incorporate a plurality of different
video analytic engines, as taught by the St-Jean reference, in
order to arrive at the claimed invention.
App. Br. 14. Appellants argue “[t]he Addy reference explicitly teaches a
system which prioritizes the monitoring and data exchange” which “suggests
that the data is transmitted in a serial fashion requiring only one transmission
route and one analytic device/function, not that of a parallel fashion.” App.
Br. 14. According to Appellants, the Examiner’s reasoning “is not an
‘articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning,’ [because] it merely
describes the function of the claimed invention; it does not explain what, if
any, benefit or advantage this provides over what was disclosed in the prior
art.” App. Br. 14.
We are not persuaded. As the Examiner points out (Ans. 20), Addy
indicates that it is not limited to one video analytics engine. Addy ^ 26. We
find the Examiner has provided reasoning with rational underpinnings (see
Final Act. 15) as required by the guidelines in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
5
Appeal 2017-004045
Application 12/900,374
550 U.S. 398 (2007/, which Appellants have not persuasively challenged.
See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Appellants further argue the proposed modification would render
Addy unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. App. Br. 14-15. Specifically,
Appellants argue the Examiner’s modification “provides a disadvantage”
because “the purpose of the Addy invention was to provide a method which
reduces both the bandwidth needed to transmit data and reduce the
processing requirements.” App. Br. 15. According to Appellants,
“secondary references teaching multiple processing schemes . . . [would]
increase the processing requirements.” App. Br. 15.
We are not persuaded. Rather, we agree with the Examiner that
[t]he purpose of the Addy invention is to reduce the bandwidth
needed to transmit data and reduce the processing requirements
on the video data provided to the system. This is done by
allowing the user to define an amount of compression for the
data comprising the identified object (See Addy, ^ 12).
Ans. 21 (emphasis added). Thus, providing multiple processing schemes do
not make Addy unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Moreover,
Appellants’ arguments are further unpersuasive because Addy does not
preclude the use of multiple video analytics engines, as described above.
Appellants also argue the Examiner used impermissible hindsight in
combining the references. App. Br. 15-16. Appellants argue “there is
nothing in the cited reference to suggest modifying the Addy reference to
arrive at the subject matter of the present claims.” App. Br. 16. According
to Appellants, “the teaching or suggestion to make the claimed combination
and the reasonable expectation of success must both be found in the prior
art, not in appellants’ disclosure.” App. Br. 16.
6
Appeal 2017-004045
Application 12/900,374
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. Appellants’
arguments are directed to the teaching, suggestion, or motivation standard
where there must be some suggestion or motivation, either in the references
themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill
in the art, to modify the reference or to combine the teachings. Such a
standard is no longer required. KSR, 550 U.S. at 415 (“We begin by
rejecting the rigid [application and requirement of a TSM to combine known
elements in order to show obviousness]”). The proper inquiry is whether the
Examiner has articulated adequate reasoning based on a rational
underpinning to explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
been led to combine Addy with the additional references. See id.at 418. As
noted above, the Examiner has provided reasoning with rational
underpinnings, which Appellants have not persuasively challenged.
Further, although Appellants contend that the combination is no more
than impermissible hindsight based on Appellants’ own Specification, this
contention is not persuasive because Appellants do not identify, nor do we
discern, any knowledge that the Examiner relied upon that was gleaned only
from Appellants’ disclosure and that was not otherwise within the level of
ordinary skill at the time of the invention. Thus, the Examiner is correct to
note that so long as a conclusion of obviousness is based on a reconstruction
that “takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of
ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not
include knowledge gleaned only from [Appellant’s] disclosure, such a
reconstruction is proper.” Ans. 22 (citing In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392
(CCPA 1971)). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred.
7
Appeal 2017-004045
Application 12/900,374
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of
independent claims 1, 24, and 27 for the reasons set forth above. For the
same reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of
dependent claims 2-10 and 21-23, 25, 26, 28, and 29.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-10 and 21-29.
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)(iv).
AFFIRMED
8