Ex Parte LaskoDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 5, 201813661572 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 5, 2018) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation