Ex Parte Sankaranarayanan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 14, 2016

12499979 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 14, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/499,979 0710912009
92556 7590
HONEYWELL/HUSCH
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O.Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
09/16/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
A viinaash Sankaranarayanan
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
H0023313 4874/108651 1449
EXAMINER
CARTER, RICHARD BRUCE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2485
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/16/2016 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):
patentservices-us@honeywell.com
amy.hammer@huschblackwell.com
pto-chi@huschblackwell.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte A VIINAASH SANKARANARA YANAN,
SWAROOP SHIVARAM, JULURI KUMAR, SANKESH HILOT, and
BOBBY NARAYANAN
Appeal2015-003926
Application 12/499,979
Technology Center 2400
Before CARHERINE SHIANG, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1--4, 6, 8-10, 12-16, 18, and 20, which
constitute all of the claims pending in this application. Claims 5, 7, 11, 17,
and 19 are canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Honeywell International, Inc. as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2015-003926
Application 12/499,979
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants described and claimed invention generally relates to
monitoring a region and directly controlling objects in the region via a single
interface. See Spec. ,-r 1. 2
Claim 1 is representative and reads as follows:
1. A method comprising:
receiving a video data stream of a monitored region from
a camera monitoring the region;
displaying the video data stream on a viewing interface;
displaying within the video of the video data stream from
the camera, on the viewing interface, a representation of at least
one controllable object in the region, the controllable object
being different than the camera;
receiving a user input selecting the representation within
the video data stream from the camera of the controllable object
on the viewing interface; and
responsive to the user input, transmitting a command to
the controllable object in the region to control the controllable
object,
wherein the displayed video data stream is used as a direct
tool or means to control, configure, activate or deactivate objects
that are viewed on the viewing interface, wherein the user
remotely authenticates execution of the transmitted command via
the viewing interface, wherein the controllable object includes at
least one of a control panel, a door, a window, a light or light
fixture, a smoke detector or other ambient condition detector, a
temperature control, an electrical system, and an electrical
2 Our Decision refers to the Final Office Action mailed Aug. 12, 2014
("Final Act."), Appellants' Appeal Brief filed Sep. 19, 2014 ("App. Br.")
and Reply Brief filed Jan. 29, 2015 ("Reply Br."), the Examiner's Answer
mailed Dec. 15, 2014 ("Ans."), and the original Specification filed July 9,
2009 ("Spec.").
2
Appeal2015-003926
Application 12/499,979
appliance, wherein the v1ewmg interface allows a user to
continuously monitor the region while simultaneously
controlling objects visible within the displayed video on the same
v1ewmg screen.
Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1--4, 6, 8-10, 12-16, 18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rohlfing et al. (US 2006/0171453 Al;
published Aug. 3, 2006) ("Rohlfing") and Howarter et al. (US 2008/0129821
Al; published June 5, 2008) ("Howarter").
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
arguments in the Briefs (see App. Br. 7-11; Reply Br. 2-3) and are not
persuaded that the Examiner has erred. Unless otherwise noted, we adopt as
our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Office
Action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 6-22) and in the
Examiner's Answer (Ans. 19-20), and we concur with the conclusions
reached by the Examiner. For emphasis, we consider and highlight specific
arguments as presented in the Briefs.
Appellants argue the rejections are improper because Rohlfing and
Howarter, and the combination of these references, fail to teach or suggest
each and every limitation of the claimed invention. 3 App. Br. 8. In
3 Appellants present arguments with respect to claims 1--4, 6, 8-10, 12-16,
18, and 20 as a group. App. Br. 7-11; Reply Br. 2-3. Accordingly, we
select independent claim 1 as representative of this group of claims, and as
necessary, we will address claim 1 in our analysis infra. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012).
3
Appeal2015-003926
Application 12/499,979
particular, Appellants argue the references, individually and in combination,
fail to teach the "receiving" step of claim 1 and the limitation "wherein the
displayed video data stream is used as a direct tool or means to control,
configure, activate or deactivate objects that are viewed within the displayed
video on the viewing interface" (the "first wherein clause"). Id. Appellants
also argue the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness because there is no teaching or suggestion in Rohlfing and
Howarter of the steps of "displaying," "receiving," and "transmitting," and
the four "wherein" limitations, of claim 1. Id. at 10-11. Appellants further
assert claim 1 is directed to the steps of "displaying," "receiving,"
"transmitting," and the four "wherein" limitations, and then argue
"[ n ]owhere within Rohlfing or Howarter and the combination of Rohlfing
and Howarter is there any disclosure of objects shown on a camera image,
that are selectable and controllable through the camera image. Reply Br. 2-
3.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has
erred. Appellants' arguments amount to no more than reciting the claim
language and alleging the cited prior art references are deficient, which are
not separate arguments for patentability of the claims. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) ("A statement which merely points out what a claim recites
will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim.");
see also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[W]e hold that
the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive
arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and
a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the
prior art."); cf In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir.
4
Appeal2015-003926
Application 12/499,979
1991) ("It is not the function of this court to examine the claims in greater
detail than argued by an appellant, looking for [patentable] distinctions over
the prior art.").
The Examiner has met the procedural burden of establishing a prima
facie case of obviousness by stating reasons for the rejections, together with
information and references as may be useful to the applicant in judging the
propriety of continuing prosecution. Final Act. 6-22; see In re Jung, 637
F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Furthermore, the Examiner provides a
detailed response to Appellants' arguments regarding the "receiving" step
and the first wherein clause of claim 1. 4 See Ans. 19-20. The Court in Jung
spoke approvingly of the Board's longstanding practice of requiring an
Appellant to identify the alleged error in an Examiner's rejection, with the
panel then reviewing the rejection for error based upon the issues identified
by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon.
Jung, 637 F.3d at 1365---66 (citing Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072 (BPAI
2010) (precedential)). Here, Appellants have not persuaded us of Examiner
error because they have failed to present substantive arguments explaining
why the cited references do not teach the various steps and limitations of
claim 1 identified by Appellants.
Appellants also argue the cited references fail to recognize the
problem solved by the claimed invention-"directly controlling objects
4 Based on the Examiner's findings regarding the combined teachings of
Rohlfing and Howarter, and the reasons therefor, we do not agree with
Appellants' argument that "[ n Jo where within Rohlfing or Howarter and the
combination of Rohlfing and Howarter is there any disclosure of objects
shown on a camera image, that are selectable and controllable through the
camera image." See Reply Br. 2-3.
5
Appeal2015-003926
Application 12/499,979
appearing in a video stream without being required to go to a different
screen"-and, therefore, "there would be no reason to combine the cited
references." App. Br. 11. We are not persuaded by this Argument because
the Examiner finds a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
"recognize[ d] the advantage of modifying the proposed teachings of
Rohlfing above by further incorporating the proposed teachings of Howarter
above to allow a user to enhance the direct control of a door displayed on a
video surveillance graphical user interface." Ans. 19-20. We agree with
this finding and find it constitutes persuasive articulated reasoning with
rational underpinning for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have
combined Rohlfing and Howarter in the manner required by the claims. See
KSR Int'! Co. v.Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Thus, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in concluding that the
combination of Rolfing and Howarter renders claim 1 obvious under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim
1, as well as claims 2--4, 6, 8-10, 12-16, 18, and 20, which are not argued
separately.
6
Appeal2015-003926
Application 12/499,979
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1--4, 6, 8-10, 12-
16, 18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7