Ex Parte Lasko

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 5, 2018

13661572 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 5, 2018)

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.
13/661,572 10/26/2012 KimLasko 0270.0007US1/RSN00165US 3771
103122 7590 03/07/2018
HoustonHogle LLP
Joseph Houston, HoustonHogle LLP
1666 Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 12
Lexington, MA 02420
EXAMINER
HANSELL JR., RICHARD A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/07/2018 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@houstonllp.com
grant .hou ston@houstonllp .com
eleahy @ tycoint. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KIM LASKO
Appeal 2017-008969
Application 13/661,572
Technology Center 2400
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judges.
PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1—4, 6-11, 13, 15-26, and29^10.2 We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
1 Our Decision makes reference to Appellant’s Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,”
filed June 6, 2017), Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed January 19, 2017), and
After Final Amendment (“After Final,” filed October 14, 2016), and the
Advisory Action (“Advisory Act.,” mailed November 30, 2016), Examiner’s
Answer (“Ans.,” mailed April 6, 2017), and Final Office Action (“Final
Act.,” mailed July 14, 2016).
2 Claims 5, 12, and 14 were cancelled. App. Br. 17-19, Claims App’x. In
the Final Rejection, claims 27 and 28 were objected to as dependent upon a
rejected base claim. Final Act. 27. In the After Final Amendment, claim 27
was rewritten in independent form, including limitations from base claims
Appeal 2017-008969
Application 13/661,572
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s invention is directed to a video distribution system that
allows user devices to select multiple streams of video data to create new
matrix and picture-in-picture views containing the selected video data.
Spec. ^ 5.
Claims 1, 20, 24, and 36 are reproduced below.
1. A security video distribution system for a video
security system, comprising:
an image processing system that performs transcoding
and mixing of video data from security cameras to
generate matrix views or picture-in-picture views that
appear as separate video data streams, wherein the image
processing system includes:
a video decoder subsystem that includes a bank of
decoders that decodes security camera video data
from the security cameras, and
a video mixer subsystem that includes a bank of
mixers that mixes the decoded video data into
mixed video data that includes video data from one
or more of the security cameras; and
an application support system that streams the mixed
video data to user devices, wherein the application
support system enables selection of the streaming video
data at the user devices, the image processing system
changing the mixing of the mixed video data performed
20 and 24. After Final 6. In the Appeal Brief, Appellant asked for
clarification regarding the status of claims 27 and 28. App. Br. 2. In the
Answer, the Examiner provided clarification that amended claim 27 is in
condition for allowance. Ans. 2 (citing Advisory Act. 2). Claim 28 remains
objected to as dependent upon rejected base claim 25. Ans. 2.
2
Appeal 2017-008969
Application 13/661,572
by the mixers in response to the selection to create
different matrix views or picture-in-picture views.
20. A transcode and mixing server for a security video
distribution system, comprising:
a video decoder subsystem that decodes security camera
video data from security cameras into decoded video data
using a bank of decoders;
a video mixer subsystem that mixes the decoded video
data into mixed video data to generate matrix views or
picture-in-picture views that appear as separate video
data streams using a bank of mixers; and
a video encoder subsystem that encodes the mixed video
data into encoded mixed video data for streaming to user
devices.
24. The transcode and mixing server of claim 20, further
comprising a decoder mixer shared memory subsystem
for buffering the decoded video data from the decoders of
the video decoder subsystem for the video mixer
subsystem.
36. The security video distribution system of claim 1,
wherein each of the decoders places decoded video data
into decoder memory and each mixer independently polls
decoder memory for decoded video data selected by the
user.
Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejected claims 1—4, 6-11, 13, 15-23, 29-32, 35, 37,
and 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Brannon et al. (US
2007/0024706 Al, published Feb. 1, 2007), Banerji et al. (US 2005/0008240
3
Appeal 2017-008969
Application 13/661,572
Al, published Jan. 13, 2005), and Gabara et al. (US 2011/0200093 Al,
published Aug. 18, 2011).
The Examiner rejected claims 24, 33, 36, and 39 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Brannon, Banerji, Gabara, and Chang et al.
(US 2010/0033621 Al, published Feb. 11, 2010).
The Examiner rejected claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Brannon, Banerji, Gabara, and Garg et al.
(US 2008/0055470 Al, published Mar. 6, 2008).
The Examiner rejected claims 25 and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Brannon, Banerji, Gabara, and Watkins et al. (US
6,507,672 Bl, issued Jan. 14, 2003).
The Examiner rejected claim 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Brannon, Banerji, Gabara, Chang, Watkins, and Garg.
Issues on Appeal
The issues in this appeal are:
1. Did the Examiner err in concluding that it would have been obvious to
combine Brannon, Banerji, and Gabara? App. Br. 10-11; Reply
Br. 3—4.
2. Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Brannon,
Banerji, and Gabara teaches or suggests a bank of mixers that mix
video data decoded by a bank of decoders? App. Br. 5-10; Reply
Br. 1-3.
3. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Brannon, Banerji,
Gabara, and Chang teaches or suggests a decoder mixer shared
memory subsystem where each mixer independently polls memory for
4
Appeal 2017-008969
Application 13/661,572
decoded video data selected by the user? App. Br. 12-16; Reply
Br. 4.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-4, 6 11, 13, 15-23, 25, 26, 29-32, 34, 35, 37, 38, and 40
Regarding independent claims 1, 11, 20, and 29, the Examiner finds
Brannon teaches a video surveillance system with transcoding capabilities
and a user controlled matrix view of the video data (i.e., combined multiple
video bitstreams). Final Act. 8-9; Ans. 6-7. The Examiner states Brannon
does not teach a video decoder subsystem that includes a bank of decoders
for decoding the captured video data or a video mixer subsystem that
includes a bank of mixers for mixing the decoded video data. Ans. 6. To
cure the first deficiency, the Examiner relies on Banerji’s teaching of a bank
of decoders to decode video data from the cameras. Final Act. 9. As for the
claimed video mixer subsystem, the Examiner relies on Banerji’s teaching of
a stitcher in the pixel domain to illustrate stitching multiple decoded video
streams from the video surveillance system into one video stream. Final
Act. 9-10; Ans. 3-5. The Examiner finds that Banerji’s stitcher performs
the same function as the claimed bank of mixers. Ans. 5. The Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
to modify Brannon’s system with Banerji’s teachings to include a bank of
decoders and a bank of mixers. Final. Act. 10; Ans. 5.
Additionally, the Examiner states the combination of Brannon and
Banerji does not teach or suggest a user being able to create his own views.
Final Act. 10; Ans. 7. The Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Brannon
5
Appeal 2017-008969
Application 13/661,572
and Banerji with Gabara’s teaching of a control system for a user to select
and combine different decoded video streams into matrix and picture-in­
picture views of streamed video data, thereby allowing a user to control his
own view or the appearance of the stream of active videos from one or more
of the security cameras. Final Act. 10; Ans. 7-8.
Issue 1
Appellant argues that the Examiner does not establish that
independent claims 1, 11, 20, and 29 would have been obvious over the
combination of Brannon, Banerji, and Gabara. Specifically, Appellant
argues that (1) it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art to combine Brannon and Banerji to teach outputting multiple video
bitstreams of mixed video data to a user, and (2) it would not have been
obvious to combine the mixer of Banerji with the control system of Gabara.
App. Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 3.
Regarding Appellant’s first argument, the Examiner finds Brannon
teaches multiple video bitstreams in a video surveillance system, and
concludes that it would have been obvious to modify Brannon with Banerji,
which illustrates that it was known to stitch multiple video bitstreams into
one video stream. Final Act. 9-10. Appellant does not address the
Examiner’s specific finding and, therefore, we do not find Appellant’s
argument persuasive.
Furthermore, we note that the Examiner’s rejection is not based upon
a bodily incorporation of Banerji’s bank of decoders and stitcher into
Brannon’s video surveillance system, but rather is based on what the
combination of Brannon’s video surveillance system, which combines
multiple video bitstreams into a matrix view output display, and Banerji’s
6
Appeal 2017-008969
Application 13/661,572
stitcher, which mixes and combines multiple videos into one output, would
have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Mouttet, 686
F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA
1981) (citations omitted) (“The test for obviousness is not whether the
features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference .... Rather, the test is what the combined
teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art.”). Because Appellant has not asserted that the proposed
modification would have been beyond the capabilities of a person of
ordinary skill in the art, we “take account of the inferences and creative steps
that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ,” and find a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have overcome those difficulties within their
level of skill. KSR Inti Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007); see
also id. at 421 (“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary
creativity, not an automaton.”).
Appellant’s second argument is similarly unpersuasive. The
Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to modify Brannon and
Banerji with Gabara to permit a user to control the appearance of the stream
of active videos to the user device. See Final Act. 10; Ans. 7-8. The
Examiner’s rejection is not based upon bodily incorporation of Gabara’s
control system into the combined teachings of Brannon and Banerji. Rather,
the rejection is based on what the combination of Brannon and Banerji, as
discussed above, combined with Gabara’s system, which permits a user to
control the appearance of the stream of active videos as a matrix view or
picture-in-picture view as selected by a user, would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art. As Appellant has not asserted that the proposed
7
Appeal 2017-008969
Application 13/661,572
modification would have been beyond the capabilities of a person of
ordinary skill in the art, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
concluding that it would have been obvious to combine Brannon, Banerji,
and Gabara.
Issue 2
Appellant argues that none of the references teaches a bank of mixers
that mix video data decoded by a bank of decoders. App. Br. 5. First,
Appellant argues that neither Brannon nor Gabara teaches or suggests a bank
of decoders or a bank of mixers. App. Br. 6, 8. Next, Appellant concedes
that Banerji teaches a bank of decoders but argues that Banerji’s stitcher is
not a bank of mixers. App. Br. 7, 9-11. In particular, Appellant contends
Banerji’s stitcher is a single device that combines decoded streams into an
output stream and cannot select which of the decoded streams to combine
into the output. App. Br. 7, 9-10; Reply Br. 1-3. Finally, Appellant argues
that the combination of references does not teach or suggest multiple video
output streams. App. Br. 10-11.
Appellant’s first argument is not persuasive because Appellant argues
the references individually. Specifically, Appellant’s arguments that
Brannon and Gabara each do not teach a bank of decoders or a bank of
mixers do not address the combination as proposed by the Examiner because
the Examiner relies on Banerji to teach these limitations.
Appellant’s argument that Banerji’s stitcher only has one mixer and is
not a bank of mixers also does not persuade us that the Examiner erred. The
Examiner finds Banerji’s stitcher serves the same function as the claimed
bank of mixers. App. Br. 7, 9-11; Reply Br. 2-3. Appellant has not
provided persuasive evidence to the contrary, and we concur that Banerji’s
8
Appeal 2017-008969
Application 13/661,572
stitcher reasonably suggests a bank of mixers for mixing the multiple
streams of decoded video data and outputting mixed video data. See Ans. 5.
Further, Appellant’s argument that the combination of references does
not teach or suggest multiple video output streams is not commensurate with
the scope of the claims. See App. Br. 7-11. As correctly interpreted by the
Examiner, the claim does not limit the mixed video data to multiple video
output data streams. See Ans. 3. Claim 1 requires an “image processing
system . . . that mixes the decoded video data into mixed video data . . . and
an application support system that streams the mixed video data to user
devices, . . . the image processing system changing the mixing of the mixed
video data performed by the mixers in response to the [user] selection to
create different matrix views or picture-in picture views.” App. Br. 17,
Claims App’x. In support of this interpretation, the Examiner notes that
claim 4, dependent upon claim 1, recites that the mixed video data is a single
stream. See Ans. 3; App. Br. 17, Claims App’x. Further, Appellant’s
Specification supports this interpretation, stating that the “transcoded video
data stream 154 is a single encoded video data stream.” Spec. ^ 42; see Figs.
1, 6A, 6B, 7A, 7B. Thus, the preponderance of the evidence supports the
Examiner’s position that the claim does not recite a limitation requiring
multiple output streams of video data. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348
(CCPA 1982) (limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon
for patentability).
Accordingly, Appellant has not persuaded us that the Examiner erred
in finding that the combination of Brannon, Banerji, and Gabara teaches or
suggests a bank of mixers that mix video data decoded by a bank of
decoders.
9
Appeal 2017-008969
Application 13/661,572
For these reasons, Appellant has not persuaded us that the Examiner
erred in finding the combination of Brannon, Banerji, and Gabara teaches or
suggests the limitations as recited in independent claim 1 and similarly
required in independent claims 11, 20, and 29. Claims 2—4, 6-10, 37, and 38
depend from claim 1; claims 13 and 15-19 depend from claim 11; claims
21-23, 25, 26, and 40 depend from claim 20; and claims 30-32, 34, and 35
depend from claim 29. Appellant does not argue these dependent claims
separately. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-
4, 6-11, 13, 15-23, 25, 26, 29-32, 34, 35, 37, 38, and 40 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
Claims 24, 33, 36, and 39
Issue 3
Claim 24 depends from claim 20 and further requires a shared
memory subsystem for buffering decoded video data. Claim 36 depends
from claim 1 and further recites that each mixer independently polls decoder
memory for decoded video data selected by the user. Claims 33 and 39
recite similar limitations. The Examiner finds that it would have been
obvious to modify the combined system of Brannon, Banerji, and Gabara
with Chang’s teaching of a shared memory pool used by various processing
units (e.g., decoder) before signals are mixed and outputted in order to buffer
signals between various processing stages. Final Act. 19-20. The Examiner
further finds that Chang’s scalar up and scalar down units are an integral part
of the mixing operation, have two-way communication with memory, and
thus provide independent polling of the memory. Ans. 10-11.
Appellant argues that Chang does not teach or suggest a bank of
decoders or a bank of mixers. App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 4. Further, Appellant
10
Appeal 2017-008969
Application 13/661,572
argues that Chang’s mixer cannot access the shared memory pool and any
decoded video data is sent to the mixer via the scalar up and scalar down
units. App. Br. 13-14, 16; Reply Br. 4.
Appellant’s first argument is not persuasive because Appellant argues
the references individually. Specifically, Appellant’s argument (App. Br.
13) that Chang does not teach a bank of decoders or a bank of mixers does
not address the combination as proposed by the Examiner because the
Examiner relies on Banerji to teach or suggest these limitations (Final Act.
10).
Moreover, Appellant’s argument that Chang’s mixer does not poll the
memory (App. Br. 13-14) does not address the Examiner’s specific findings.
The Examiner finds that the scalar up and scalar down units are an integral
part of the mixing operation and provide polling of the memory. Ans. 10-
11. Appellant concedes Chang’s mixer receives decoded video data via the
scalar units, and Appellant does not refute the Examiner’s finding that the
scalar units are part of the mixing operation. See App. Br. 16; Reply Br. 4.
Accordingly, Appellant has not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in
finding the combination of Brannon, Banerji, Gabara, and Chang teaches or
suggests a decoder mixer shared memory subsystem where each mixer
independently polls memory for decoded video data.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 24, 33, 36,
and 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
11
Appeal 2017-008969
Application 13/661,572
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, Appellant has not persuaded us that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—4, 6-11, 13, 15-26, and 29 40 under
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combinations of cited references.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—4, 6-11, 13, 15-26, and 29^10
are 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)(1).
AFFIRMED
12