Ex Parte Manasseh et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 27, 2013

10506368 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2013)

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.
10/506,368 01/21/2005 Frederick Mark Manasseh 0004800USU/4269 1079
27623 7590 06/28/2013
OHLANDT, GREELEY, RUGGIERO & PERLE, LLP
ONE LANDMARK SQUARE, 10TH FLOOR
STAMFORD, CT 06901
EXAMINER
HO, TUAN V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2661
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/28/2013 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 FREDERICK MARK MANASSEH, OMRI BEN-TOV, ZION
HADAD, JONATHAN MOAV, and ASHER RUBEL
____________________

Appeal 2012-008765
Application 10/506,368
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before THU A. DANG, JAMES R. HUGHES,
and GREGORY J. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-008765
Application 10/506,368

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-38 and 40-60 (App. Br. 5). Claim 39 has been canceled (App. Br.
6). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

A. INVENTION
Appellants’ invention is directed to a system and method for traveler
interactions management that captures and records in real-time data, audio
and video at specific locations along the traveler’s path (Abstract; Spec. 8: 2-
5).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:

1. An apparatus for the analysis of at least one first agent-traveler
interaction and at least one second agent-traveler interaction the apparatus
comprising:

an at least one first station for capturing substantially the full audio, video,
and data of the at least one first agent-traveler interaction along a path of a
traveler;

an at least one second station for capturing substantially the full audio,
video, and data of the at least one second agent-traveler interaction along the
path of the traveler, wherein the at least one second agent-traveler station is
located at a location other than the first agent-traveler station; and

an analysis device for comparing the audio, video, and data of the at least
one first agent-traveler interaction with the audio, video, and data of the
at least one second agent-traveler interaction to determine, based upon a
predetermined rule, a discrepancy.
Appeal 2012-008765
Application 10/506,368

3

C. REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Hong US 6,102,331 Aug. 15, 2000
Kondoh US 6,496,176 B1 Dec. 17, 2002
Gutta US 2003/0040925 A1 Feb. 27, 2003
O’Hara US 2003/0058084 A1 March, 27, 2003
Brooks US 2003/0210139 A1 Nov. 13, 2003
Eilbacher US 6,724,887 B1 April, 20, 2004
Houvener US 6,757,408 B2 June 29, 2004
Pettay US 7,191,133 B1 March 13, 2007
Nishimoto US 7,260,237 B2 Aug. 21, 2007
Ritter US 7,084,736 B2 Aug. 1, 2006

Claims 1-19, 23-32, 34-37, 42-45, and 50-53 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brooks in view of Gutta, Pettay,
and Nishimoto.
Claims 20-22, 33, 38, 40, 41, and 47 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brooks in view of Gutta, Pettay,
Nishimoto, and Houvener.
Claims 46 and 54 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Brooks in view of Gutta, Pettay, Nishimoto, and Kondoh.
Claims 48 and 49 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Brooks in view of Gutta, Pettay, Nishimoto, Houvener,
and Eilbacher.
Appeal 2012-008765
Application 10/506,368

4
Claims 55 and 58 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Brooks in view of Gutta, Pettay, Nishimoto, and O’Hara.
Claims 56 and 59 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Brooks in view of Gutta, Pettay, Nishimoto, and Hong.
Claims 57 and 60 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Brooks in view of Gutta, Pettay, Nishimoto, and Ritter.

II. ISSUES
The dispositive issues before us are whether the Examiner has erred in
determining that the combination of Brooks, Gutta, Pettay, and Nishimoto
teaches or would have suggested “an at least one first station for capturing
substantially the full audio, video, and data of the at least one first agent-
traveler interaction along a path of a traveler” and “an analysis device for
comparing the audio, video, and data of the at least one first agent-traveler
interaction with the audio, video, and data of the at least one second agent-
traveler interaction to determine, based upon a predetermined rule, a
discrepancy” (claim 1, emphasis added).

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Brooks
1. Brooks discloses a security system having a passenger
identification system which can either be implemented at the entrance of the
airport terminal or at airline passenger check-in counters where passengers
check their luggage and receive tickets, boarding passes and/or seat
Appeal 2012-008765
Application 10/506,368

5
assignments (¶ [0048]). In particular, the passenger identification system
includes a personal identification screening station (booth or enclosure) that
compares the passenger’s documentary identification (passport, driver’s
license or other ID) with the person’s identification based upon personal
information and attribute data stored in the system (¶¶ [0042] and [0048]).
The station may include one or more security sensors including, but not
limited to a fingerprint scanner for capturing fingerprint data, a camera for
capturing facial images and data for facial recognition processing, an audio
transducer for capturing a person’s speech data for use in speech recognition
profiling, and a retinal scanner for capturing retinal data for use in retinal
scanning identification (¶ [0042]).
Gutta
2. Gutta discloses an event monitoring system 100 that includes an
event detection process 300 and a fraudulent return detection process 400;
wherein, the event detection process 300 detects a number of specific
fraudulent events defined in the event database 200 by analyzing the
captured images, while the fraudulent return detection process 400 detects
when a person is attempting to make a fraudulent merchandise return by
analyzing the captured images (¶ [0017]).
Pettay
3. Pettay discloses a system and method for analyzing a voice
interaction between a client and an agent, verifying compliance of an agent’s
reading a script to a client (col. 5, ll. 30-34). In particular, the voice
interaction is captured, converted to digital form, and exposed to the
Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) component, in real-time or in a
recorded form, and the ASR component analyzes at least a portion of the
Appeal 2012-008765
Application 10/506,368

6
voice interaction (col. 5, ll. 44-48). The analyzed portion is compared
against a prepared script associated with the given portion of the voice
interaction, and a determination is made concerning the extent to which the
agent complied with the script during the voice interaction (col. 5, ll. 48-53).
Nishimoto
4. Nishimoto discloses a system that reads a fingerprint and
compares the fingerprint information read with the stored fingerprint image
to determine whether the fingerprint information matches the fingerprint
image (col. 5, ll. 57-61). A determination is made of whether the
comparison has been made a predetermined number of times, and if not, the
process is repeated (col. 6, ll. 3-6).

IV. ANALYSIS
Claims 1-19, 23-32, 34-37, 42-45 and 50-53
Appellants contend that “Brooks nowhere teaches interaction between
two persons, namely, between an agent and a traveler” (App. Br. 16);
wherein, “substantially the full audio, video and data of an interaction
between two or more persons” is captured (App. Br. 20). Appellants argue
that “Brooks teaches away of capturing interactions between persons, since
in Brooks individuals and articles are surveyed or identified in the same
manner, and there is no interaction with inanimate objects” (App. Br. 17).
Appellants contend further that “[n]either Gutta nor Pettay nor
Nishimoto, alone or in combination, remedy the deficiencies of Brooks”
(App. Br. 21). According to Appellants, “incorporating the teaching of
Gutta into Brooks would trigger a false security event, thereby disrupting the
security system of Brooks and decreasing its efficiency” (App. Br. 23) and
Appeal 2012-008765
Application 10/506,368

7
“incorporating Pettay into Brooks would not enable [the] record[ing] and
compar[ing] [of] voice or other audio signals in the noisy environment of an
airport or a similar facility, and would degrade the operation of the
combined system of Pettay and Brooks” (App. Br. 26). Finally, Appellants
argue that since “Nishimoto requires repeating the comparison of the data
(e.g. fingerprints) for a predetermined number of times” (App. Br. 27),
“incorporating Nishimoto into Brooks in view of Gutta and Pettay would
degrade the operation of the combined system” (App. Br. 28).
However, the Examiner finds that “it is a necessity [for] [an agent] to
accept the luggage [at a] checks[-]in [counter] [from] the passenger and
issue tickets and [] boarding passes to the passenger;” therefore, “[t]he
interaction between the passenger and agent/personnel member are inherent
in the action” at the “‘passenger identification system which can [] be
implemented at the airline passenger check-in counters” (Ans. 27)(emphasis
omitted). The Examiner notes that since “Brooks discloses [that] ‘[t]he
station can include a booth or enclosure having one or more security sensors
including a camera for capturing facial images and data for facial
recognition processing, an audio transducer for capturing a person’s speech
data for use in speech recognition profiling and a retinal scanner for
capturing retinal data for use in retinal scanning identification,’” Brooks
does “teach capturing the full audio, video, and data of interaction” (Ans.
29).
Appellants’ argument that “Brooks nowhere teaches interaction
between two persons” is not commensurate in scope with the specific
language of claim 1 (App. Br. 16). In particular, claim 1 does not recite such
“interaction between two persons” as Appellants argue.
Appeal 2012-008765
Application 10/506,368

8
We give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir.
1997). However, we will not read limitations from the Specification into the
claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim 1 does not define “agent-traveler interaction”, and the
Specification merely discloses that a service or control station is manned by
an agent, such as a travel agent, check-in agent, security personal, border
control officer, ground attendant and the like (Spec. 3: 2-4). However, we
note that the Specification and claim do not limit an “agent” to a human
being. Thus, we give “first station” for capturing “audio, video, and data” of
the at least one “first agent-traveler interaction along a path of a traveler” its
broadest reasonable interpretation as a station that captures data
corresponding to any interaction between an entity that mans a service or
control station and a traveler, as consistent with the Specification and claim
1.
Brooks is directed to a security system having a passenger
identification system includes a personal identification screening station
(booth or enclosure) compares the passenger’s documentary identification
(passport, driver’s license or other ID) with the person’s identification based
upon personal information and attribute data stored in the system (FF 1).
The station may capture fingerprint data, facial images and data for facial
recognition processing, a person’s speech data, and retinal data (id.).
We find Brook’s personal identification screening station comprises
an agent/station that captures data corresponding to the interaction between
the agent and a traveler. We find further that Brook’s passenger
identification system comprises an analysis device for comparing the audio,
Appeal 2012-008765
Application 10/506,368

9
video, and data of at least one first agent-traveler interaction with audio,
video, and data of a previously stored agent-traveler interaction to
determine, based upon a predetermined rule, a discrepancy.
In addition, Gutta discloses an event monitoring system that includes
an event detection process and a fraudulent return detection process;
wherein, the event detection process detects a number of specific fraudulent
events defined in the event database by analyzing the captured images, while
the fraudulent return detection process detects when a person is attempting
to make a fraudulent merchandise return by analyzing the captured images
(FF 2). We find that Gutta’s event monitoring system comprises an analysis
device that compares the audio, video, and data of a traveler’s interaction at
a first and second location to determine, based upon a predetermined rule, a
discrepancy.
Further, Pettay is directed to a system that compares voice interactions
between a client and an agent, verifying the content of the discussion in
comparison to a prepared script (FF 3). We find that Pettay’s system
includes an analysis device that compares a first and second instance of
audio and data to account for a discrepancy.
Moreover, Nishimoto discloses a system that captures fingerprint data
and compares this data with stored fingerprint data (FF 4). We find that
Nishimoto’s system includes an analysis device that compares a first and
second instance of data to account for a discrepancy.
In view of our claim construction above, we find that the combination
of Brooks, Gutta, Pettay, and Nishimoto at least suggests all the claimed
limitations of claim 1.
Appeal 2012-008765
Application 10/506,368

10
Though Appellants also contend that the combination “teaches away”
(App. Br. 17), our reviewing court has held that “‘[a] reference may be said
to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon [examining] the
reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the
reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was
taken by the applicant.’” Para-Ordnance Mfg., Inc. v. SGS Importers Int’l.,
Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1090 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (quoting In re Gurley, 27 F.3d
551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).
Appellants have identified no persuasive support for a direction
divergent from the claimed invention since Brooks discloses that interactions
are captured between the traveler and the personal identification screening
station. Here, the Appellants appear to have viewed the reference from a
different perspective than the Examiner. The issue here is not whether
Brooks teaches away from capturing interactions between two persons, but
rather whether a person of ordinary skill, upon reading Brooks, would be
discouraged from using event monitoring process as taught by Gutta.
The Supreme Court has stated that “[t]he combination of familiar
elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Thus, we find no error in the Examiner’s finding that the combination
of Brooks’ system (including personal identification screening station) that
captures capture fingerprint data, facial images and data for facial
recognition processing, a person’s speech data, and retinal data with the
event monitoring system having rules that detect fraudulent events, as
disclosed in Gutta, produces a system that captures full audio, video and data
Appeal 2012-008765
Application 10/506,368

11
of an interaction between and agent and a traveler and compares these
interactions to detect a discrepancy which would be obvious (Ans.11; FF1-
2).
Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Brooks in view of, Gutta, Pettay, and
Nishimoto. Further, independent claims 23 and 43 having similar claim
language and claims 1-19, 24-32, 34-37, 42, 44, 45, and 50-53 (depending
from claims 1 and 23) which have not been argued separately, fall with
claim 1.
Claims 20-22, 33, 38, 40, 41, 46-48, and 54-60
We affirm, supra, the rejection of parent claims 1 and 23 under 35
U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Brooks in view of Gutta, Pettay, and
Nishimoto. Appellants present no separate argument for the patentability of
dependent claims 20-22, 33, 38, 40, 41, 46-48, and 54-60. We therefore
affirm the rejection of claims 20-22, 33, 38, 40, 41 and 47 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Brooks in view of Gutta, Pettay, Nishimoto
and Houvener; of claims 46 and 54 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Brooks in view of Gutta, Pettay, Nishimoto, and Kondoh;
of claims 48 and 49 as being unpatentable over Brooks in view of Gutta,
Pettay, Nishimoto, Houvener, and Eilbacher’ of claims 55 and 58 as being
unpatentable over Brooks in view of Gutta, Pettay, Nishimoto, and O’Hara;
of claims 56 and 59 as being unpatentable over Brooks in view of Gutta,
Pettay, Nishimoto, and Hong; and of claims 57 and 60 as being unpatentable
over Brooks in view of Gutta, Pettay, Nishimoto and Ritter.

Appeal 2012-008765
Application 10/506,368

12
V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-38 and 40-60 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

tkl