Ex Parte Subbian et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 10, 201712757306 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 10, 2017) 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. 12/757,306 04/09/2010 Deepakumar Subbian H0025327 4874/110811 2411 92556 7590 HONEYWELL/HUSCH Patent Services 115 Tabor Road P.O.Box 377 MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950 EXAMINER HUSSAIN, FARRUKH ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2444 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/14/2017 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 @ honey well, com amy. hammer @ hu schblackwell .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 DEEPAKUMAR SUBBIAN, MARINE DRIVE, and ANDREW JACKSON Appeal 2016-005778 Application 12/757,306 Technology Center 2400 Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges. PER CURIAM. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 1, 4, 7—11, and 14—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 12, and 13 are canceled. See App. Br. 18, 20 (Claims App’x). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Invention Appellants’ invention “relates to systems and methods for grouping cameras in a large scale surveillance system and viewing and browsing video data streams associated with those cameras.” Spec. 11. Claims 1,11, Appeal 2016-005778 Application 12/757,306 and 18 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal (bracketed letters added for ease of reference): 1. [a] A method comprising: [b] a user interface accepting user input grouping a plurality of cameras associated with a surveillance system into a plurality of groups; [c] the user interface accepting user input selecting at least one group from the plurality of groups; [d] the user interface simultaneously displaying video data streams from a predetermined number of cameras in the selected group on a display, the cameras viewing different monitored zones of the surveillance system wherein the predetermined number of cameras is greater than one; and [e] the user interface accepting user input browsing through sets of video data streams associated with all cameras in the selected group by arranging and displaying video streams of the predetermined number from the selected group at any given time and the user interface accepting user input selecting and displaying next and previous sets to browse through the video data streams associated with all cameras, wherein grouping the plurality of cameras includes grouping the plurality of cameras according to geographic location in a monitored area, [f] wherein grouping the plurality of cameras includes grouping a representation name of each camera into a respective one of a plurality of folders, each folder corresponding to a respective geographic location in the monitored area, [g] wherein grouping the name of each camera into the respective one of the plurality of folders includes dragging and dropping the name of each camera into the respective one of the plurality of folders, [h] wherein displaying video data streams associated with a predetermined number of cameras in the selected group 2 Appeal 2016-005778 Application 12/757,306 includes displaying the video data streams in an NxM array of viewing sub-windows and [i] wherein the NxM array includes W viewing sub windows. See App. Br. 17—18 (Claims App’x). Rejections on Appeal Claims 1, 4, 7—11, and 14—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Girgensohn et al. (US 2008/0088706 Al; published Apr. 17, 2008) (“Girgensohn”), Rohlf et al. (US 2008/0016472 Al; published Jan. 17, 2008) (“Rohlf’), Vallone et al. (US 2006/0221184 Al; published Oct. 5, 2006) (“Vallone”), and Washino et al. (US 5,625,410; issued Apr. 29, 1997) (“Washino”). See Final Act. 4—19. The Record Rather than repeat the arguments here, we refer to the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.” filed Sept. 17, 2015), Reply Brief (“Reply Br.” filed May 16, 2016) and the Specification (“Spec.” filed Apr. 9, 2010) for the positions of Appellants and the Final Office Action (“Final Act.” mailed Aug. 13, 2015) and Answer (“Ans.” mailed Mar. 24, 2016) for the reasoning, findings, and conclusions of the Examiner. Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have been considered in this decision. Arguments that Appellants did not make in the Appeal Brief have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s findings and explanations in light of Appellants’ arguments and contentions. We agree with the Examiner’s 3 Appeal 2016-005778 Application 12/757,306 findings and explanations, and we adopt them as our own. The following discussion, findings, and conclusions are for emphasis. Element [e] Appellants contend none of Girgensohn, Rohlf, Vallone, and Washino, alone or in combination, teaches or suggests each and every element of claim 1, and in particular, element [e]. See App. Br. 10—12; Reply Br. 2. Asa result, Appellants contend the Examiner fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. See App. Br. 12—14. More specifically, Appellants argue Girgensohn’s disclosure of selecting a video data stream from a set of cameras to switch the selected stream to the main playing video data stream does not teach or suggest “selecting and displaying next and previous sets to browse through the video data streams,” as recited in element [e]. See Reply Br. 2 (emphasis added). With respect to Vallone, Appellants argue that Vallone’s disclosure of “selecting and displaying next and previous events within a single video stream from a single camera'1'’ does not teach or suggest “selecting and display next and previous sets of different video data streams from a plurality of different cameras.'1'’ Reply Br. 2 (emphasis added). We find Appellants’ contentions unpersuasive. As an initial matter, to the extent Appellants argue neither Girgensohn, Rohlf, Vallone, nor Washino individually teaches or suggests element [e] of claim 1, we are unpersuaded because the arguments attack each reference individually and fail to substantively address what a person of ordinary skill would have understood from the references’ combined teachings. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) (“one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking 4 Appeal 2016-005778 Application 12/757,306 references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references”). Moreover, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that a combination of Girgensohn and Vallone teaches or suggests element [e] of claim 1. For example, the Examiner finds that Girgensohn teaches a video surveillance system in which a user can select a set of cameras having video streams from a group of cameras for display on a user interface. See Final Act. 5—6 (citing Girgensohn || 6, 19, 22, 60). Based on these teachings of Girgensohn, the Examiner finds Girgensohn teaches or suggests “user input browsing through sets of video data streams associated with all cameras in the selected group by arranging and displaying video streams of the predetermined number from the selected group.” See id', see also Girgensohn Figs. 1—3, 6, 7 (each figure showing a different selected set of cameras arranged and displayed on a user interface). The Examiner also finds that Girgensohn teaches “the user interface accepting user input selecting and displaying ... to browse through the video data streams” with its disclosure that a user can click on any of the video streams in the user interface to make it the main camera video. See Final Act. 5 (citing Girgensohn || 6, 60, 70). In addition, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that enabling user input on a user interface for selecting and displaying “next and previous” sets of video data streams was old and well-known in the art, as evidenced by Vallone. See id. at 7—8 (citing Vallone Tflf 27, 34, 54). Furthermore, the Examiner provides a specific rationale to combine the teachings of Girgensohn and Vallone drawn directly from the cited prior art, which Appellants do not persuasively rebut. See id. at 8 (citing Vallone 197). For emphasis only, we also note that applying this known 5 Appeal 2016-005778 Application 12/757,306 previous/next selection functionality, as evidenced by Vallone, to Girgensohn’s user interface including multiple sets of selectable camera video streams, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, providing the predictable result of allowing a user to select and display previous and next sets of camera video streams. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). In view of the foregoing, Appellants’ contentions regarding element [e] of claim 1 have not persuaded us the Examiner erred in finding that a combination of Girgensohn and Vallone teaches or suggests this element. Accordingly, Appellants’ contentions regarding element [e] of claim 1 have not persuaded us the Examiner failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Element [d] Appellants argue Girgensohn’s invention displays past and future video streams of multiple camera views, which is different from the claimed “cameras viewing different monitored zones of the surveillance system,” as recited in element [d] of claim 1. See App. Br. 10. We disagree because, as the Examiner finds, Girgensohn teaches “cameras viewing different monitored zones of the surveillance system” by displaying and monitoring a plurality of video streams from a plurality of cameras having positions in different zones such as hallways, common areas, offices, and other rooms. See Ans. 3; Girgensohn Figs. 1—3, 6, 7; 1 52. Principle of Operation For the same reasons we agree with the Examiner that Girgensohn teaches “cameras viewing different monitored zones of the surveillance system” (see discussion regarding Element [d], supra), we disagree with Appellants’ argument that “Girgensohn et al. could not be modified to show 6 Appeal 2016-005778 Application 12/757,306 video from cameras with[out] changing a principle of operation” (App. Br. 11)—Girgensohn would not need to be modified to perform these features. Moreover, Appellants’ argument regarding the principle of operation of Girgensohn lacks supporting evidence and does not substantively address the relevant portions of Girgensohn. See In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (“Attorney’s argument in a brief cannot take the place of evidence.”). Problem Solved by Appellants Appellants argue the Examiner’s rejection is improper because none of the cited references is directed to the problem solved by Appellants’ claimed invention, namely “providing a surveillance system where sets of cameras associated with a particular region can be independent [sic] selected in groups. . . ., there would be no reason to combine the references.” App. Br. 5. We disagree. Appellants’ argument is unpersuasive because “[i]n determining whether the subject matter of a patent claim is obvious, neither the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the patentee controls. What matters is the objective reach of the claim. If the claim extends to what is obvious, it is invalid under § 103.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 419. As is the case here, “[a]s long as some motivation or suggestion to combine the references is provided by the prior art taken as a whole, the law does not require that the references be combined for the reasons contemplated by the inventor.” In re Beattie, 91A F.2d 1309, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 1992); see Final Act. 7-9. [T]he problem motivating the patentee may be only one of many addressed by the patent’s subject matter. The question is not whether the combination was obvious to the patentee but 7 Appeal 2016-005778 Application 12/757,306 whether the combination was obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art. Under the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed. KSR, 550 U.S. at 420. Moreover, contrary to Appellants’ arguments, Girgensohn does solve the problem faced by Appellants by providing a surveillance system where a user can independently select different sets of cameras wherein each set can be associated with a different region. Girgensohn 122; Figs. 1—3, 6, 7. In view of the foregoing, we find Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner’s rejection is improper to be unpersuasive. Summary For the reasons stated above, Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred in the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, as well as the rejection of claims 4, 7—11, and 14—20, which were argued together with claim 1. See generally App. Br. 10-15; Reply Br. 2—3. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 4, 7—11, and 14—20 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). See 37 C.F.R. §§1.136(a)(l)(iv), 41.50(f), 41.52(b). AFFIRMED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation