Ex Parte PAFF

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 30, 2002

08438479 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 30, 2002)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for
publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 31
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte ROBERT PAFF
____________
Appeal No. 1998-0872
Application No. 08/438,479
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before JERRY SMITH, BARRY, and LEVY, Administrative Patent Judges.
LEVY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
examiner's final rejection of claims 98-100, 102-107 and 109-130,
which are all of the claims pending in this application.
BACKGROUND
Appellant's invention relates to a graphical workstation for
an integrated security system. An understanding of the invention
can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 98, which is
reproduced as follows:
Appeal No. 1998-0872
Application No. 08/438,479
Page 2
98. A graphical work station for an integrated security
system for controlling a plurality of security devices in a
protected premises including a plurality of output devices and a
plurality of video surveillance cameras, comprising a control
unit communicating with a display unit having one or more
monitors and an input device operable by an operator,
(a) said control unit having storage means for storing a
graphical image representing selected portions of the layout of
said protected premises, including first icons representative of
said output devices and second icons representative of said video
surveillance cameras, each first icon representative of an output
device being located on said graphical image in the same relative
location as that output device is located in said protected
premises and each second icon representative of a video
surveillance camera being located on said graphical image in the
same relative location as that video surveillance camera is
located in said protected premises,
(b) said control unit having means to display on said
display unit said stored graphical image with said each first
icon and said each second icon displayed in its respective
location,
(c) said input device having means controllable by said
operator for selecting a given second icon on said graphical
image representative of a given one of said plurality of video
surveillance cameras to activate said given one of said plurality
of video surveillance cameras,
(d) said control unit having means responsive to the
operation of said input device by said operator to select said
given second icon on said graphical image representative of said
given one of said plurality of video surveillance cameras, for
displaying on said display unit a live video image from said
given one of said plurality of video surveillance cameras,
(e) said input device having means controllable by said
operator for selecting a given first icon on said graphical image
representative of a given one of said plurality of output devices
to control said given one of said plurality of output devices,
and
Appeal No. 1998-0872
Application No. 08/438,479
Page 3
(f) said control unit also having means for activating or
deactivating an output device to control a given security
function of said output device from said graphical image.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Clever 4,237,483 Dec. 2, 1980
Williams 4,581,634 Apr. 8, 1986
Smart, J. C., “Proceedings 1987 Carnahan Conference on Security
Technology: Electronic Crime Countermeasures” (July 15-17, 1987),
pages 1-5.
Claims 98-100, 102-107, 109-121, 123-127, 129, and 130 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Smart
in view of Williams.
Claims 122 and 128 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Smart in view of Williams, and further in
view of Clever.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and appellant regarding the above-noted rejections,
we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 28, mailed
February 20, 1997) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to appellant's brief (Paper No.
27, filed January 8, 1997) and reply brief (Paper No. 29, filed
Appeal No. 1998-0872
Application No. 08/438,479
Page 4
March 18, 1997) for appellant's arguments thereagainst. Only
those arguments actually made by appellant have been considered
in this decision. Arguments which appellant could have made but
chose not to make in the briefs have not been considered. See 37
CFR 1.192(a).
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have carefully
considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections advanced
by the examiner, and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by
the examiner as support for the rejections. We have, likewise,
reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our decision,
appellant's arguments set forth in the briefs along with the
examiner's rationale in support of the rejections and arguments
in rebuttal set forth in the examiner's answer.
Upon consideration of the record before us, we
affirm-in-part.
Appellant lists 13 groupings of claims (brief, page 8). We
observe that claims 104, 110, and 120 do not appear in any of the
groupings. Nor have any of these claims been separately argued.
Accordingly, we will consider these claims to rise or fall with
the claims from which they depend. Accordingly, Claim 104 will
rise or fall with independent claim 102, from which claim 104
Appeal No. 1998-0872
Application No. 08/438,479
Page 5
depends (Group III). Claim 110 will rise or fall with
independent claim 109, from which claim 110 depends (Group VI).
Claim 120 will rise or fall with independent claim 116, from
which 120 depends (Group X).
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent
upon the examiner to establish a factual basis to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071,
1073, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In so doing, the
examiner is expected to make the factual determinations set forth
in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 148 USPQ 459, 467
(1966), and to provide a reason why one having ordinary skill in
the pertinent art would have been led to modify the prior art or
to combine prior art references to arrive at the claimed
invention. Such reason must stem from some teaching, suggestion
or implication in the prior art as a whole or knowledge generally
available to one having ordinary skill in the art. Uniroyal,
Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1051, 5 USPQ2d 1434,
1438 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins &
Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 293, 227 USPQ 657, 664 (Fed.
Cir. 1985); ACS Hosp. Sys., Inc. v. Montefiore Hosp., 732 F.2d
1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed. Cir. 1984). These showings
by the examiner are an essential part of complying with the
Appeal No. 1998-0872
Application No. 08/438,479
Page 6
1 Appellant has not separately argued the Clever reference, and has
indicated (brief, page 8) that these claims rise or fall with claim 98.
burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. Note In
re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992). If that burden is met, the burden then shifts to the
applicant to overcome the prima facie case with argument and/or
evidence. Obviousness is then determined on the basis of the
evidence as a whole. See id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039,
228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d
1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re
Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
We turn first to claims 98, 121-125 and 128 (Group I).
Claims 98, 121, 123-125 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Smart in view of Williams. The examiner adds
Clever for claims 122 and 1281. We refer to the answer (pages 4-
7) for the examiner's findings with respect to the teachings of
Smart. The examiner's position (answer, page 8) is that Smart
does not disclose control means for activating or deactivating an
output device (e.g. clock or door) by the operator to control a
security function of the output device from the graphical image.
To overcome this deficiency in Smart, the examiner states (id.)
that the "concept of activating or deactivating an output device
Appeal No. 1998-0872
Application No. 08/438,479
Page 7
such as automatically locking or unlocking a door operated by
security personnel for people entering a surveillance
environment/building is well recognized in the art." The
examiner turns to Williams for a teaching of locking and
unlocking a door operated by a security guard. The examiner
asserts (id., page 8) that from the teachings of Smart, Williams,
and the general knowledge of camera surveillance systems, that it
would have been obvious to have the security personnel (operator)
lock or unlock doors in the security system of Smart as taught by
Williams, for the well known reason of operator control in a
surveillance environment.
Appellant points out (brief, page 9) that as set forth in
paragraphs (e) and (f) of claim 98, selection of a first icon on
the graphical image controls the output device from the graphical
image. Appellant asserts (brief, page 10) that the examiner is
in error in combining the "general concept" of locking/unlocking
a door of Williams because Williams is not directed to a
graphical workstation and does not have graphical images of the
protected premises. Appellant further argues that Williams does
not teach the use of icons on graphical images representative of
security devices such as a door, and that Williams uses a video
image to determine whether the operator should unlock a door. If
Appeal No. 1998-0872
Application No. 08/438,479
Page 8
the operator decides to unlock the door, a separate button or
switch is activated. Appellant additionally argues (id., pages
10 and 11) that even if combined, the combination of Smart and
Williams, at most, teaches that the operator of smart would have
separate panels of switches to open or lock doors, with lists
that the operator must look up in order to determine which switch
operates which door. Appellant further asserts (id., page 11)
that the examiner is engaging in hindsight, using appellant's
invention as a template.
We find that Smart (page 1) is directed to a security
console system that utilizes a workstation which is closely
integrated with a map display system. The system allows
operators to readily pan and zoom into any of the buildings and
surrounding area. Access to alarm sensor information,
entry-control device status, and the closed circuit television
system is obtained by zooming into an area and selecting the
appropriate icons or symbols on the maps. Databases are closely
integrated into the system, providing access to information such
as telephone numbers and building and room occupants. Smart
further discloses (page 2) that workstations provide operator
access to all security functions, including area-access control
monitoring, television surveillance and assessment, and general
Appeal No. 1998-0872
Application No. 08/438,479
Page 9
security operations support. The center screen of the
workstation is used to display maps, annunciate alarms, and
control and monitor equipment. Alarms and access-control
problems are reported to each workstation. Connected to the
workstation is a high-resolution graphics processor that displays
maps, incidents and control menus. The control menus are
overlaid on the map (page 1). Operator input is generally
performed using a mouse, since the keyboard is used mainly to
enter incident comments and to annotate reports (pages 2 and 3).
As shown in figure 1, to the right of the center screen are six
monitors for video assessment and surveillance. Smart further
discloses (page 3) that an operator may display any of several
hundred camera images on any of the monitors by selecting the
appropriate camera icon on the graphics display. Any camera may
be continuously recorded using a VCR. A video-disk recorder is
available for snapshots or freeze-frames. A map is continuously
displayed on the center screen. The operator may freely zoom
into or selected portions of the map using the mouse buttons. At
a particular zoom level, the operator can pan in any of four
directions. Objects (alarmed doors and windows, detectors,
cameras, etc.) are shown on the map as icons or symbols denoting
their actual positions in the real world. The icons or symbols
Appeal No. 1998-0872
Application No. 08/438,479
Page 10
are displayed in color, such as green for satisfactory, red for
emergency, etc. To obtain more information about an object, the
operator may use the mouse to select the object. A control menu
is displayed in a window overlapping the map, but map
manipulation may be continued with the menu showing. Selecting a
room or building label on the map causes relevant information,
such as occupants, to be displayed. As shown in figure 4, leader
lines and incident summaries are displayed on the map.
Considering these teachings of Smart with William's
disclosure of verifying the identity of an individual before
unlocking a door to allow entry into a secured area, we find that
an artisan would have been taught to allow the operator of Smart
to control an output device, such as lock/unlock a door to allow
an individual to enter an area. Because the system of Smart
provides the operator with information regarding the occupants of
an area and the operator is provided with access to all security
functions, including area access control functions, we agree with
the examiner (answer, page 8) that providing the operator of the
security system of Smart with the ability to lock/unlock doors
would have been obvious and would provide control of the security
environment. As to how the door lock/unlock feature of Williams
would be implemented in Smart, we disagree with appellant (brief,
Appeal No. 1998-0872
Application No. 08/438,479
Page 11
pages 10 and 11) that the combined teachings of Smart and
Williams would result in separate panels of switches to
lock/unlock doors, with lists that the operator must look up to
determine which switch operates which door. We find that Smart
discloses that the map is continuously displayed (page 3);
objects such as doors and windows are shown on the map as icons
or symbols denoting their actual positions in the real world
(page 3); to obtain more information about an object on the map,
the operator selects the particular icon on the pap with the
mouse (id.). In addition, the mouse is used to zoom in/out of
selected portions of the map, and the operator may display camera
images by selecting the appropriate camera icon from the graphics
display (page 3, col. 1).
From these teachings of Smart we find that an artisan would
have been taught to lock/unlock a door by using the mouse from
the graphics display. In addition, we find no suggestion that an
artisan would have separate panels of switches to open or unlock
doors, with lists that the operator must look up to determine
which switch operates which door, as advanced by appellant.
Since Smart teaches the icons representing objects such as doors
"are shown on the map as icons ... denoting their actual position
in the real world" (page 3, col. 2) there would be no reason to
Appeal No. 1998-0872
Application No. 08/438,479
Page 12
keep separate lists of door switches when the icon for the
specific door is already on the graphic display (map). From all
of the above, we find that the examiner's proposed modification
of Smart in view of the teachings of Williams results in the
claimed subject matter, and that the examiner has not used
appellant's invention as a template, as advanced by appellant.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 98 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
affirmed. As claims 121-125 and 128 stand or fall with claim 98,
the rejection of claims 121-125 and 128 is affirmed.
Before we turn to Group II, claims 99 and 100, we note
appellant's statement (brief, page 9) that all of the other
claims contain all limitations contained in claim 98. We find
that notwithstanding appellant's statement, of the ten
independent claims before us on appeal, only independent claims
98 and 105 contain the language (paragraph (f)) of control means
for activating or deactivating an output device to control a
given security function of said output device "from said graphic
image." The other eight independent claims do not contain the
language "from said graphic image" and therefore do not contain
all of the limitations found in claim 98.
We turn next to claims 99 and 100 (Group II). The
examiner's position (answer, page 14) is that Smart teaches pan,
Appeal No. 1998-0872
Application No. 08/438,479
Page 13
tilt, and zoom controls and that the operator can zoom into
portions of the map.
Appellant asserts (brief, page 12) that neither Smart nor
Williams shows the feature of controlling the camera pan, tilt,
and zoom functions directly from the graphical image. Appellant
further asserts (reply brief, pages 3 and 4) that merely because
smart suggests the presence of pan, tilt, and zoom controls does
not suggest that these functions are controlled from the
graphical image.
From our review of Smart, we find that Smart does not teach
controlling the pan, tilt, and zoom functions from the graphical
image. We find that Smart discloses (page 3) that a map is
continuously displayed on the main (center) control screen; that
objects such as cameras are shown on the map as icons; that an
operator may display camera images by selecting the appropriate
camera icon on the graphics display (map); that many cameras have
pan, tilt, and zoom capabilities; that an operator may freely
zoom into or out of selected portions of the map using the map
buttons, and that at any zoom level, the operator may pan in any
of four directions using scroll-type pan bars, and the disclosed
control of operations from the graphical display; that inputs are
generally performed using a mouse; that camera images are
Appeal No. 1998-0872
Application No. 08/438,479
Page 14
displayed by selecting the icon on the graphics display, and that
when an alarm occurs, a camera can be automatically turned and
focused on the appropriate location. However, the panning and
zooming on the map is not the same as the panning, tilting, and
zooming of the camera. Figure 3 of Smart, which illustrates a
block diagram of a workstation, appears to show that the pan,
tilt, and zoom (PTZ) is part of the surveillance and assessment
portion of the workstation, which is on the right side of the
console, and is not part of the center screen. We therefore find
that the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness of claim 99 and claim 100 which depends therefrom.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 99 and 100 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is reversed.
We turn next to claims 102-104 (Group III). We begin with
independent claim 102. Appellant asserts (brief, page 14) that
there is no suggestion in Smart to display on the monitor both a
sub-image palette showing a graphical image of an entire area on
a small scale, and adjacent thereto an enlarged graphical image
with the first and second icons of a selected portion of the
entire area. We agree. We are unpersuaded by the examiner's
assertion (answer, page 9) that although these limitations are
not particularly disclosed by Smart, that "it is nevertheless
Appeal No. 1998-0872
Application No. 08/438,479
Page 15
considered obvious that such manipulation of images may certainly
be provided by Smart." Even if we considered the center screen
to be a sub-palette of a graphical image of an entire area on a
small scale as advanced by the examiner, the enlarged image on
the adjacent monitors displays the camera view, and does not
display an enlarged graphical image with first and/or second
icons, as required by claim 102. Moreover, claim 102 calls for
the simultaneous display of both graphical images on the same
monitor. The examiner has not addressed the question of the
obviousness of putting the enlarged camera display from one of
the adjacent monitors onto the graphics display (map) monitor.
In addition, if the zooming in on an area of the graphics display
were considered to be the claimed enlarged area with a graphical
image with first and/or second icons of a selected smaller
portion of the entire area, the language of claim 102 would still
not be met. Claim 102 calls for the enlarged graphical image to
be adjacent to the sub-image palette on a monitor. When zooming
in on a portion of the map, there is no disclosure in Smart for
the enlarged zoomed image to be adjacent to the sub-image palette
showing an entire graphical image on a small scale. Viewing
figure 4 of Smart, the map appears to display three incident
summaries with leader lines. Figure 5 of Smart shows three
Appeal No. 1998-0872
Application No. 08/438,479
Page 16
active incidents prioritized and summarized in the screen at the
top right. Selecting the incident on the graphic display (map)
with the mouse enables automatic pan and zoom to the correct
location as shown in figure 5 (pages 3 and 4). Viewing the
incident in figure 5 does not disclose the map to be
simultaneously displayed and adjacent to the enlarged graphical
image on the same monitor, but rather, the zoomed area is shown
instead of the map. From this disclosure of Smart, we find no
teaching of the enlarged graphical representation being adjacent
to a sub-image palette showing a display of an entire area. The
examiner has not addressed the question of obviousness of placing
the images adjacent to one another on the same monitor. In sum,
we find that the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness of the invention set forth in claim 102 and
claims 103 and 104 which depend therefrom. Accordingly, the
rejection of claims 102-104 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
We turn next to the rejection of claim 105 (Group IV).
Appellant asserts (brief, page 15) that claim 105 requires the
first icon, when activated on the graphical image, is changed to
pictorially represent the actual open or closed condition of the
output device, based on the change in status of the output
device. Appellant argues (id., and reply brief, page 4) that in
Appeal No. 1998-0872
Application No. 08/438,479
Page 17
Smart, although the color of the icon will change, there is no
change in the pictorial representation, and that Smart merely
shows an alarm condition when it occurs, which does not tell the
operator whether the door is open or closed at any particular
time.
The examiner's position (answer, page 16) is that Smart
discloses that the objects are being shown in their actual
position in the real world, and that "it is considered obvious
that the color indication of the objects and the object positions
have some sort of correlation and for that matter there is a
pictorial representation of the objects in any color coded
condition."
We find that Smart discloses (page 3) that objects such as
doors "are shown on the map as icons or symbols denoting their
actual positions in the real world." We find that the
disclosure that icons denote the "actual positions" of objects in
the real world suggests that the icons can represent the objects
actual position i.e., open/closed, and not just the location of a
door in a building. Because Smart uses the phrase "actual
position" instead of perhaps "actual location" the language used
would have suggested to an artisan the actual open/closed
position of an output device such as a door or window. In
Appeal No. 1998-0872
Application No. 08/438,479
Page 18
addition, Smart discloses that the color of the icon indicates
the severity of the object, such as green for satisfactory, red
for emergency, blue for offline, etc. From Smart's reference to
the use of color such as red for emergency and green for
satisfactory, we find that Smart additionally teaches that the
use of color of an icon can also represent the actual open or
closed condition of an object such as a door opened as a breach
of the security of a building monitored by the system. We agree
with appellant that coloring icons does not represent a pictorial
representation. We consider a pictorial representation to be an
actual image and not a color. In addition, in view of Smart's
use of color as a representation of open/closed position of an
object such as a door, we consider representations of color to
illustrate the actual open/closed position of a door to be
equally illustrative as a pictorial representation, and consider
it to have been obvious to an artisan that a pictorial
representation of an icon be utilized, in view of the teachings
of Smart. We agree with the examiner (answer, page 16) that
there is a correlation between color and pictorial
representations. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 105 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is therefore affirmed.
We turn next to the rejection of claims 106 and 107
Appeal No. 1998-0872
Application No. 08/438,479
Page 19
(Group V). The examiner's position (answer, page 17) is that the
center screen of the workstation of Smart, which displays a map
of the surveillance area, may be considered a sub-image control
palette. Appellant asserts (brief, page 16 and reply brief, page
5) that a map of a surveillance environment is not a sub-image
control palette, and that neither Smart nor Williams shows or
suggests using a sub-image control palette on the graphical image
to control the functions of a security device.
We find that in Smart, the center screen, in addition to
displaying maps, is used to control and monitor equipment. In
addition, (page 3) upon selecting an object on the graphical
display using the mouse, a control menu is displayed in a window
overlapping the map. Smart also discloses that the control menus
are overlaid on the map (page 1), and that (page 3) the graphical
image (map) can continue to be manipulated even though the
control menu is displayed. In contrast to claim 102, claim 106
does not require that the sub-image control palette shows a
graphical representation of an entire area on a small scale. As
broadly drafted, claim 106 only requires that a palette is
superimposed on the graphical image and that the palette controls
a sub-image from the display, which is defined in claim 98, from
which claim 106 depends, as having one or more monitors. Because
Appeal No. 1998-0872
Application No. 08/438,479
Page 20
Smart discloses that the window for the control menu is
superimposed on the graphical display, we find that the control
menu is a control palette superimposed on the graphical image for
controlling a sub-image, with a sub-image being a selected area
viewed by a selected security device such as a camera.
Accordingly, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claim 106,
and claim 107 which depends therefrom, is affirmed.
We turn next to the rejection of claims 109 and 110 (Group
VI). Appellant asserts (brief, page 17) that the icon
graphically indicates the pan and tilt position of the camera and
that there is nothing in Smart to suggest this feature.
Appellant further asserts (id., and reply brief, page 5) that
"[i]n applicant's invention, the icon for the camera has a cone-
shaped extension to indicate the pan position of the camera with
the length of the extension to indicate the tilt position." We
find that claim 109 does not require that the icon graphically
represents the pan and tilt of the camera, as advanced by
appellant. The claim as drafted only requires that the graphical
indicia is "associated" with the icon. In addition, we that the
"cone-shaped" extension is not claimed. However, claim 109
requires that the graphical indicia representing pan and tilt are
indicated on the graphical image itself. We find that Smart
Appeal No. 1998-0872
Application No. 08/438,479
Page 21
teaches (page 3) that icons for cameras are shown on the
graphical image (map) denoting their actual positions in the real
world, and that cameras have pan and tilt capability. We agree
with the examiner (answer, pages 17 and 18) and find that in view
of Smart's disclosure of displaying icons on the graphical image
to denote their "actual position" in the real world, that even
though the pan and tilt of the camera are controlled by the
surveillance and assessment portion of the workstation, that it
would have been obvious to show the pan or tilt of the camera on
the graphical display in order for the operator to know the
direction and angle that the camera is pointing. Accordingly,
the rejection of independent claim 109, and claim 110 which
depends therefrom, is affirmed.
We turn next to the rejection of claims 111-113 (Group VII)
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The examiner's position (answer, page 18)
is that an operator can select any target of interest for
viewing, and that because Smart discloses automatic panning and
tilting to an alarm location and display of the alarm location,
that it would have been obvious to provide automatic panning and
tilting of a camera to a target selected by the operator.
Appellant asserts (brief, page 18) that the examiner's
position is unsupported and that neither Smart nor Williams shows
Appeal No. 1998-0872
Application No. 08/438,479
Page 22
the feature of having the operator being able to select a target
on a graphical image for viewing. From our review of Smart, we
agree with the examiner that in Smart (page 1), an operator can
select any target for surveillance because the system allows the
operator to "readily pan and zoom into any of the Laboratory
buildings and surrounding areas." In addition (page 3) when an
alarm occurs, the cameras can be readily turned and focused on
the appropriate location. Smart further discloses (page 3) that
incidents occur as a result of object state changes. Figure 5
shows three active incidents prioritized and summarized on the
screen with a leader line from the incident summary box to the
appropriate position. Selecting an incident with the mouse draws
an incident control menu that enables automatic pan and zoom [on
the map] to the correct location (pages 3 and 4). In addition
(id.), Smart discloses that "any video (possibly audio)
associated with the incident can be automatically switched." We
find from this disclosure of Smart, that upon three active
incidents occurring, as in figure 5, an automatic zoom and pan to
the location on the map, i.e, the target area, with the highest
priority will occur. By selection of one of the incidents by the
operator, the operator will be selecting one of the three target
areas. Upon selection of the incident, any video associated with
Appeal No. 1998-0872
Application No. 08/438,479
Page 23
the incident can be automatically switched on. From the
statements in Smart that any video associated with the incident
can be automatically switched and can be automatically turned and
focused on the appropriate location, we find that Smart discloses
that the video surveillance camera will pan and tilt to the
incident (target) location selected by the operator.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 111-113 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is affirmed.
We turn next to the rejection of claim 114 (Group VIII).
Appellant asserts (brief, page 19) that the claim requires that
when the operator designates a point within a preselected region
of the topographical image, a preselected video camera will
automatically aim without necessarily displaying the live video
image from that camera. Appellant argues that Smart does not
show or suggest the designation of a point within a preselected
region on the graphical image to automatically cause a camera to
aim at that point.
We affirm the rejection of claim 114 for reasons similar to
our affirmance of the rejection of claim 111, supra. We agree
with the examiner (answer, page 19) that "it is considered
obvious that each of the cameras shown in Figure 4 of Smart has a
preselected region of interest to be surveilled," and that it is
Appeal No. 1998-0872
Application No. 08/438,479
Page 24
considered obvious that an operator can "designate a point within
any of the preselected regions so as to surveil a region of
interest." We find that when a incident occurs and the map
display pans and zooms to the area of the overall map containing
the incident of highest priority, the map displays a preselected
region of interest as the map displays the area having an
incident of highest priority, as shown in figure 5 of Smart. As
we stated supra, with respect to claim 111, upon selection of the
active incident with the highest priority, the video surveillance
camera will turn and focus on the designated point of the
incident to display video associated with the incident.
As to the claim language regarding the video image not
being necessarily displayed, we find that Smart's disclosure
(page 3) that "an operator may display any of the camera images
on any of the monitors" would have suggested to an artisan that a
monitor can be turned off and images from a camera may not
necessarily be displayed. Accordingly, the rejection of claim
114 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
We turn next to the rejection of claim 115 (Group IX) under
35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellant asserts (brief, pages 19 and 20, and
reply brief, page 6) that the claim requires that the live video
image and the graphical image be simultaneously displayed on the
Appeal No. 1998-0872
Application No. 08/438,479
Page 25
same monitor, and that the examiner has misinterpreted the claim
as permitting the live image and the graphical display to be on
different monitors. The examiner's position is that the claim
does not require that the live video image and the graphical
image have to be on the same monitor, and that, in any event,
Smart teaches display of camera images on the graphics display.
As stated by the court in In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362,
1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998) "[t]he name of the
game is the claim." We find that the claim recites that "the
live video image from said given one of said plurality of video
cameras is displayed in a window on said monitor of said display
unit simultaneously displaying the graphical image." From the
language recited in the claim, we agree with appellant that the
examiner has misinterpreted the claim. In addition, we find that
Smart (page 3) discloses that:
Each workstation contains six black-and-white
television monitors for video assessment and
surveillance. The two larger monitors are normally
reserved for alarm-related video. An operator
may display any of several hundred camera images
on any of the monitors by selecting the appropriate
camera icon on the graphics display.
From this disclosure of Smart, we find that the language "on any
of the monitors" refers to the six video monitors. We find no
teaching in Smart of putting the black-and-white live video on
Appeal No. 1998-0872
Application No. 08/438,479
Page 26
the center monitor that displays the maps and colored icons. The
examiner has not addressed the obviousness of this issue. We
therefore find that the examiner has failed to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness of claim 115. Accordingly, the
rejection of claim 115 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
We turn next to the rejection of claims 116-118, and claim
120 (Group X) under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellant asserts (brief,
page 21) that neither Smart nor Williams show or suggest the
superimposition of graphics on the live video image. From our
review of Smart, we find no suggestion of this feature in Smart,
who does not disclose placing the live video on the same monitor
as the monitor having the graphics display. We are not persuaded
by the examiner's assertion (answer, page 20) that "it is
considered obvious if not inherent that some sort of video and
graphics multiplexer is required to carry out the desired
functions as claimed." We find no teaching or suggestion in
Smart to support the examiner's position. We therefore find that
the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness of independent claim 116, and claims 117, 118, and
120 which depend therefrom. Accordingly, the rejection of claims
116-118, and 120 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
Appeal No. 1998-0872
Application No. 08/438,479
Page 27
We turn next to the rejection of claims 119 and 120 (Group
XI) under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We reverse the rejection of these
claims based upon their dependency from independent claim 116.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 119 and 120 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is reversed.
We turn next to the rejection of claims 126 and 127 (Group
(XII) under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellant asserts (brief, page 22)
that Smart does not teach or suggest the use of a sub-image
control palette appearing on the monitor from which control of
the VCR is accomplished. Appellant further asserts (reply brief,
page 7) that Although smart automatically turns on a VCR to
record an image, Smart does not suggest displaying an VCR
controls on a sub-image control palette on the monitor. The
examiner's position (answer, pages 21 and 22) is that Smart's
automatic turn-on of the cameras when an alarm occurs and
displaying the situation on the monitor "is essentially providing
a sub-image control palette on the monitor from which the
recording of a live video image on the VCR can be controlled."
We note at the outset that the sub-image control palette can
be on any monitor of the display. Smart discloses (page 3) that
any camera may be continuously recorded using a VCR, and that
camera images can be displayed by selecting the camera icon on
Appeal No. 1998-0872
Application No. 08/438,479
Page 28
the graphics display. Smart additionally discloses (id.) that to
obtain more information about an object such as a camera, the
operator uses the mouse to select the object, and a control menu
is displayed in a window overlapping the map.
From this disclosure of Smart, we find that the displayed
control menu is a sub-image palette that permits the operator to
display a camera image. However, there is no disclosure of how
the VCR is turned on. Claim 126 requires that the input device
has means controllable by the operator to cooperate with the sub-
image control palette to record a live image on the VCR. It is
not clear from the disclosure of Smart as to how the VCR is
turned on by the operator. Smart does not disclose whether the
VCR is turned on from the control menu when the camera icon is
selected, or whether the VCR is turned on at the surveillance
console at the right side of the workstation. We would have to
resort to speculation to conclude that the VCR is turned on from
the control menu. The examiner has not addressed this issue and
accordingly, has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness of independent claim 126, and claim 127, which
depends therefrom. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 126 and
127 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
We turn next to the rejection of claims 129 and 130
Appeal No. 1998-0872
Application No. 08/438,479
Page 29
(Group XIII) under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellant asserts (brief,
page 23) that the time lapse VCR recording of Smart is not the
same as pre-programming to display live video images. The
examiner's position (answer, page 23) is that Smart discloses
that a selected "camera of interest may be pre-programmed to
record at a time-lapsed mode." We find that Smart discloses
(page 3) that "[v]ideo signals are displayed using a computer-
controlled video-switching system." Smart further discloses
(id.) six monitors for video assessment and surveillance. From
these teachings of Smart, we find that in order to display the
video images from selected cameras, the computer controlled
video-switching system will inherently display in a sequential
fashion the video images from selected ones of the plurality of
video surveillance cameras. Accordingly, the rejection of claim
129, and claim 130 which depends therefrom, is affirmed.
Appeal No. 1998-0872
Application No. 08/438,479
Page 30
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims
98, 105-107, 109-114, 121-125, and 128-130 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
is affirmed. The decision of the examiner to reject claims 99,
100, 102-104, 115-120, 126, and 127 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136 (a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LANCE LEONARD BARRY ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
STUART S. LEVY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 1998-0872
Application No. 08/438,479
Page 31
SSL/gjh
Appeal No. 1998-0872
Application No. 08/438,479
Page 32
JOHN J. TORRENTE
ROBIN, BLECKER, DALEY, AND DRISCOLL
330 MADISON AVENUE
NEW YORK, NY 10017