Ex Parte Laganiere et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 13, 2017

13500711 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 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.
10304.0100 9138
EXAMINER
WERNER, DAVID N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2487
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
13/500,711 04/06/2012
39602 7590 02/13/2017
THE NOBLITT GROUP, PLLC
Daniel J. Noblitt
8800 NORTH GAINEY CENTER DRIVE
SUITE 279
SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85258
Robert Laganiere
02/13/2017 PAPER
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.
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 2016-002979
Application 13/500,711
Technology Center 2400
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, DENISE M. POTHIER, and
JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.
REPKO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1—11, 18, 20-25, and 32. App. Br. 4.1 Claims 12—17, 19,
26—31, and 33—44 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Action (“Final Act.”)
mailed January 28, 2015, (2) the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed June 1,
2015 and the replacement Claims Appendix submitted on August 5, 2015,
(3) the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed November 18, 2015, and (4) the
Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed January 18, 2016.
Appeal 2016-002979
Application 13/500,711
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ invention relates to video analytics. Spec. 11. Video
analytics can be used to recognize significant features in video frames.
Id. 14. For example, video-analytics applications can identify suspicious
movement of people or assets. Id. 119. The invention transmits video data
from its source to a central server over Wide Area Network (WAN). Id. 1 8.
The central server then performs video analytics. Id. To reduce the
bandwidth below the WAN’s limit, the invention pre-processes video data
before transmitting it to the central server. Id. This pre-processing formats
the video data relating to an event of interest differently than video data not
relating to the event. Id. 121.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence:
Wells US 2004/0240546 A1 Dec. 2, 2004
St-Jean US 2008/0184245 A1 July 31, 2008
Salgar US 2009/0021583 A1 Jan. 22, 2009
Claims 1—3, 5, 11, 18, 25, and 322 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over St-Jean and Salgar. Ans. 4—8.
2 Appellants appeal from the Examiner’s last decision. Notice of Appeal
(March 9, 2015). In the Final Rejection, the Examiner rejected claim 32.
Final Act. 9. But the “Claims Appendix” of Appellants’ original Brief did
not contain claim 32. App. Br. 22. Because the Principal Brief did not
contain a correct copy of the appealed claims as an appendix, the Brief was
determined to be non-compliant. See Notification of Non-Compliant Appeal
Brief (July 23, 2015). In response, Appellants filed a replacement to the
2
Appeal 2016-002979
Application 13/500,711
Claims 4, 6—10, and 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over St-Jean, Salgar, and Wells. Ans. 9-10.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER ST-JEAN AND SALGAR
Claim 1
Claim 1 is reproduced below with our emphasis:
1. A method comprising:
receiving at a source end video data including first video
data relating to an event of interest and second video data other
than relating to the event of interest, the video data captured
using a video camera disposed at the source end;
using video analytics to detect the first video data and the
second video data within the video data;
pre-processing the video data at the source end to reduce
the bandwidth requirement for transmitting the pre-processed
video data to below a bandwidth limit of a Wide Area Network
(WAN) over which the pre-processed video data is to be
transmitted, wherein the pre-processing comprises selectively
formatting the second video data differently than the first video
data;
transmitting the pre-processed video data to a central
server via the WAN;
performing other video analytics processing of the pre-
processed video data at other than the source end; and,
based on a result of the other video analytics processing,
generating a signal for performing a predetermined action in
response to an occurrence of the event of interest at the source
end.
“Claims Appendix” section of the Brief, which included claim 32. See
Response to Notice of Non-Compliant Appeal Brief (August 5, 2015).
3
Appeal 2016-002979
Application 13/500,711
Contentions
Regarding claim 1, the Examiner finds that St-Jean discloses every
recited element of claim 1, except for (1) transmitting the first video data
over a WAN and (2) formatting the first video data differently from the
second video data. Ans. 4—6. In concluding that claim 1 would have been
obvious, the Examiner relies on Salgar to teach these features. Id. at 6.
In particular, the Examiner finds that St-Jean uses video analytics to
detect a first and second video data within video data. Id. at 5 (citing St-
Jean || 37, 52). According to the Examiner, St-Jean distinguishes between
video frames that trigger analysis. Ans. 5. In the Examiner’s view, St-Jean
detects video that contains motion (the recited first video data) and video
that does not contain motion (the recited second video data). Id. at 12.
Appellants argue that St-Jean does not teach using video analytics to
detect a first and second video data within video data, as recited in claim 1.
App. Br. 7—8. According to Appellants, St-Jean’s camera’s motion detection
is only used as a trigger. Id. at 8. Appellants contend that St-Jean does not
explain what type of motion detection is used or whether the motion
detection distinguishes between frames. Id.
Issue
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that St-Jean uses video analytics to detect the first and second video data
within video data, as recited in claim 1 ?
4
Appeal 2016-002979
Application 13/500,711
Analysis
Because Salgar was not relied upon to teach the limitation at issue
(see Ans. 4—6, 12), we limit our discussion to the St-Jean reference.
In claim 1 ’s rejection, the Examiner cites an embodiment that uses a
camera with motion detection to provide a trigger. Id. at 5 (citing St-
Jean || 52, 37). According to the Examiner, St-Jean’s motion detection
distinguishes between frames. Ans. 5. In the cited portion, St-Jean states
that “[w]hen motion is detected, the camera results, or dedicated resources
results, can be provided as trigger information” to generate the video
analytics task. St-Jean | 52. But apart from this disclosure, St-Jean does not
disclose expressly that the “camera results” are a frame-by-frame
classification of the video based on motion (see id.), as explained by the
Examiner (Ans. 5, 12).
Nor has the Examiner shown that merely triggering analytics
inherently requires a frame-by-frame classification of video into a first and
second data. See id. at 5, 12. The purpose of St-Jean’s camera-motion
trigger is to initiate video analytics. St-Jean | 52. St-Jean’s trigger can be
any event, data, alert, result, or other information that initiates a need for
video processing or analytics. Id. 137. For example, an external trigger
information can be based on a physical alarm. Id. Internal triggers can be
based on logic. Id. For example, a location can be monitored at scheduled
times. Id. 138.
This description of triggers does not support the Examiner’s finding
that St-Jean’s system provides continual frame-by-frame motion
classification. Ans. 12. Indeed, the Examiner’s finding that St-Jean’s
motion detection is “always active” lacks a citation to the reference. See id.
5
Appeal 2016-002979
Application 13/500,711
And contrary to this finding, St-Jean’s discussion of triggers includes an
embodiment that detects motion only at a scheduled times. See
St-Jean H 37-38.
Moreover, St-Jean uses this motion-detection trigger to initiate a task
request. Id. 140. The task request initiates higher-level video analytics.
Id. 54—55. But St-Jean does not transmit video data to be analyzed in this
task request. Id. 142. Rather, the video-analytics resource acquires the
video using a video-source identifier. Id. The acquired video can be
streamed live or stored. Id. 161. In the cited embodiment (id. 1 52, cited in
Ans. 5), the Examiner has not established that the to-be-analyzed video must
be stored as classified motion segments, instead of triggering the analysis of
live video streamed from the camera, as is done in other examples (see, e.g.,
St-Jean H 61, 105). Therefore, we see no requirement that St-Jean’s camera
detect a first video data containing motion and second video data not
containing motion (Ans. 5, 12) before the system initiates higher-level video
analytics.
On this record, Appellants’ argument that St-Jean does not teach using
video analytics to detect the first and second video data within video data as
recited (App. Br. 7—8) is persuasive. Because this issue is dispositive
regarding the Examiner’s error in rejecting claim 1, we need not address
Appellants’ remaining arguments.
6
Appeal 2016-002979
Application 13/500,711
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of (1) independent
claim 1, (2) independent claim 18, which recites commensurate limitations,3
and (3) dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 11, and 25 for similar reasons.
Claim 32
In the Principal Brief, Appellants indicated that independent claim 32
has been canceled by an amendment submitted concurrently with the Brief
(App. Br. 2) and omitted claim 32 from the claims appendix (id. at 22). But
“[a] brief shall not include any new or non-admitted amendment.” 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(2); see also MPEP § 1206 I (9th ed., Rev. 07.2015, Nov. 2015)
(discussing amendments filed at the same time as the appeal brief). Because
the Principal Brief did not contain a correct copy of the appealed claims as
an appendix, the Brief was determined to be non-compliant. See
Notification of Non-Compliant Appeal Brief (July 23, 2015). In response,
Appellants filed a replacement to the “Claims Appendix” section of the
Brief, which included claim 32. See Response to Notice of Non-Compliant
Appeal Brief (August 5, 2015). Therefore, claim 32 is involved in this
appeal.
Appellants expressly state that “claim 32 is not addressed” in the
Principal Brief. App. Br. 2; see also id. at 5—17 (omitting any reference to
claim 32). Likewise, the corrected Brief lacks any additional arguments.
See Response to Notice of Non-Compliant Appeal Brief (August 5, 2015).
3 Claim 18 recites, in part, “a first portion of the video data in which the
event of interest is detected is formatted differently than a second portion of
the video data in which the event of interest is other than detected.”
7
Appeal 2016-002979
Application 13/500,711
The Reply Brief does reference claim 32 in the conclusion.
Reply Br. 6. Appellants, however, do not present substantive arguments in
regard to claim 32. See id. at 2—5. Nor do Appellants explain how the
arguments presented against the rejection of claim 1 apply to claim 32,
which recites different limitations. See id. at 2—6.
Nevertheless, to the extent that Appellants intend the arguments to
apply to claim 32, those arguments are belated. Because claim 32 is
different in scope from claim 1, the Board would be considering Appellants’
arguments as now applied to claim 32 in the first instance. Moreover, the
Response to Argument section of the Answer does not contain any
additional findings of fact that would necessitate a response, either regarding
the references or in discussing claim 32. See Ans. 3.
For these reasons, we will not consider Appellants’ arguments against
claim 32’s rejection appearing in the Reply Brief. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2).
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 32.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER ST-JEAN, SALGAR, AND
WELLS
We, however, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of dependent
claims 4, 6—10, and 20-24 for the same reasons discussed above in
connection with claims 1 and 18. The additional reference, Wells, was not
relied upon to teach selectively formatting the second video data differently
than the first video data, which is missing from the combination of St-Jean
and Salgar. See Ans. 9-10. Accordingly, Wells does not cure the deficiency
explained previously given the record.
8
Appeal 2016-002979
Application 13/500,711
CONCLUSIONS
We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—11, 18, and
20-25 under § 103.
We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 32 under § 103.
DECISION
We affirm-in-part the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—11, 18, 20—25,
and 32.
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-IN-PART
9